"The heavens declare the glory of God; the skies proclaim the work of his hands." (Psalm 19:1)
https://discussions.godandscience.org/
Yet so many would argue that such things don't prove anything. But they MUST logically prove what was necessary, as the alternative asserts that many complexities, functionalities and designs of what came into existence at the Big Bang don't require intelligence. So the question remains, what are blind, non-living things capable of? They can't see, plot, plan, have control over themselves, have any way of seeking or recognizing advantages, etc. And thus they have ZERO potential to gain intelligence or to use it! So BLIND / non-living / non-intelligent things cannot explain the Big Bang or the things happening within it!DB: I think Meyer makes an excellent case that science is not agnostic regarding an intelligent Creator.
In this lecture Meyer presents three great scientific evidences regarding cosmological and biological origins.
- The universe had a beginning
- The universe was finely tuned from the beginning
- There have been infusions of information into earth's biosphere since the beginning.
I don't know what most physicists believe and I venture to guess neither do you but I'd be happy to look at some stats if you have them.
What do you mean by non-physical? You mean spiritual, like souls and angels? Or do you mean whatever supposedly existed (if any) prior to the big bang? If you mean the latter, then that too, is also physical, i.e. is governed by a set of physical laws. Even at the quantum level there are still physical laws that govern quantum gravitational fields and quantum mechanics.
No argument there.
You keep repeating that science confirmed it and I'm you telling you you are flat out wrong. Science confirmed no such thing, if for nothing else that science is not in the business of confirming anything.
Which is precisely what I'm telling you and yet you keep insisting science has confirmed it.
Or perhaps scholastic philosophers as early as the 13th century recognized the futility of arguing against infinite past time as proof for the existence of God and steered away from it like the plague and instead employed far better arguments from metaphysics.
Let's put it another way, then: Now, after centuries, and especially in the area of modern physics and astrophysics, science has provided absolutely NO reason to believe anything physical pre-existed the Big Bang. Proven - no. But why do YOU seem to doubt it? Course, science can only measure the physical or it's traces or impact (like black holes / dark matter). So, I'm only using "proven" in the sense that an immense amount of studies and data converge on, even if it cannot go a bit further back to prove such. And it is obvious - as you have long argued, that NOTHING comes from NOTHING - with your "unsupported bookcase analogy. And really, that is the ONLY reason to think there was something before the Big Bang. Again, scientific evidences show that what IS known about the early universe and it's building blocks literally screams that an intelligence was required.Byblos: You keep repeating that science confirmed it and I'm you telling you you are flat out wrong. Science confirmed no such thing, if for nothing else that science is not in the business of confirming anything.
I don't doubt it at all - you know that. I would argue scripture doesn't just imply an absolute beginning to physical reality, the text actually is emphatic on the subject. I simply choose to also steer away from arguing against infinite physical reality as proof for God because it's an emotional argument, not one based in reason.Philip wrote: ↑Wed Aug 12, 2020 5:20 pmLet's put it another way, then: Now, after centuries, and especially in the area of modern physics and astrophysics, science has provided absolutely NO reason to believe anything physical pre-existed the Big Bang. Proven - no. But why do YOU seem to doubt it? Course, science can only measure the physical or it's traces or impact (like black holes / dark matter). So, I'm only using "proven" in the sense that an immense amount of studies and data converge on, even if it cannot go a bit further back to prove such. And it is obvious - as you have long argued, that NOTHING comes from NOTHING - with your "unsupported bookcase analogy. And really, that is the ONLY reason to think there was something before the Big Bang. Again, scientific evidences show that what IS known about the early universe and it's building blocks literally screams that an intelligence was required.Byblos: You keep repeating that science confirmed it and I'm you telling you you are flat out wrong. Science confirmed no such thing, if for nothing else that science is not in the business of confirming anything.
Hebrews 11:3: By faith we understand that the universe was created by the word of God, so that what is seen was NOT made out of things that are visible."
So, it is certainly implied in Scripture that God spoke the universe into existence from nothing, as it is contrasted with being made "out of things that ARE visible."
Astrophysicist and apologist Hugh Ross discusses it here: https://reasons.org/explore/publication ... -it-first!
We have no convincing evidence (except for words, and we understand that you can say and write anything) of neither one nor the other. It seems to me that the most reasonable option is not to divide the world into only spiritual or only physical. All processes are interconnected. We can assert as much as we like that it is only a matter of science, developments, and drawings, but these developments will not work without the energy that is in the world. Gravity is energy, resistance is also energy. We have found definitions for many types of energy for convenience. But in essence, this energy is not material. We can say that this divine power allows us to realize all our plans and developments. For example, an aerospace company in Scotland is developing satellite launch vehicles. Do they not take into account the influence of invisible energy in their designs, the action of which requires more effort to launch a satellite into low-Earth orbit? Of course. I say this to the fact that in our world everything is interconnected - tangible and invisible, physical, and spiritual/energetic. Therefore, you cannot divide the world. We will not be able to do without basic things, nor without the energy that maintains the balance.Byblos wrote: ↑Thu Aug 13, 2020 2:33 amI don't doubt it at all - you know that. I would argue scripture doesn't just imply an absolute beginning to physical reality, the text actually is emphatic on the subject. I simply choose to also steer away from arguing against infinite physical reality as proof for God because it's an emotional argument, not one based in reason.Philip wrote: ↑Wed Aug 12, 2020 5:20 pmLet's put it another way, then: Now, after centuries, and especially in the area of modern physics and astrophysics, science has provided absolutely NO reason to believe anything physical pre-existed the Big Bang. Proven - no. But why do YOU seem to doubt it? Course, science can only measure the physical or it's traces or impact (like black holes / dark matter). So, I'm only using "proven" in the sense that an immense amount of studies and data converge on, even if it cannot go a bit further back to prove such. And it is obvious - as you have long argued, that NOTHING comes from NOTHING - with your "unsupported bookcase analogy. And really, that is the ONLY reason to think there was something before the Big Bang. Again, scientific evidences show that what IS known about the early universe and it's building blocks literally screams that an intelligence was required.Byblos: You keep repeating that science confirmed it and I'm you telling you you are flat out wrong. Science confirmed no such thing, if for nothing else that science is not in the business of confirming anything.
Hebrews 11:3: By faith we understand that the universe was created by the word of God, so that what is seen was NOT made out of things that are visible."
So, it is certainly implied in Scripture that God spoke the universe into existence from nothing, as it is contrasted with being made "out of things that ARE visible."
Astrophysicist and apologist Hugh Ross discusses it here: https://reasons.org/explore/publication ... -it-first!
It is a fact that from reason alone it cannot be shown that physical reality is not infinite in the past. Do I believe it? Of course not. Neither did Aquinas and most of the church doctors, old and new.
We can certainly argue from science as the best evidence for an absolute beginning, not just of this universe but for any number of universes, theoretical or otherwise. I've often used the BVG theorem to that end.
But proof? Let's just leave that to reason.