Scientific evidence / arguments for God

[LegionOnomaMoi]

Only if you have no understanding of Quantum Mechanics.

"I think I can safely say that nobody understands quantum mechanics" Richard P. Feynman The Messenger Lectures, 1964

 

[Call_of_the_Wild]

"The term “Big Bang”, however, is often used (even in a scientific context) in a broader sense, as synonymous with the birth and origin of the Universe as a whole. In other words, this term is used also to indicate the single event from which everything (including space and time themselves) directly originated, emerging from an initial singular state, i.e., a state characterized by infinitely high values of energy, density and temperature.
This second interpretation is certainly suggestive, and even scientifically motivated within the standard cosmological model. Nonetheless, it has been challenged by recent developments in theoretical physics that took place at the end of the twentieth century." from The Universe Before the Big Bang: Cosmology and String Theory (Astronomer's Universe; Springer, 2008).

Sorry for the delay. Had to take a break from the madness on here. But yeah, the Big Bang theory is has the most empirical evidence supporting it. All of these other "pre-big bang" models, there is NO evidence for them. Just pure speculation. Apart from the lack of evidence, there is also the philosophical problem of infinity that these natural "eternalistic" models fail to address. These are not problems that you can just sweep under the rug, they have to be addressed.

It doesn't. First, there is work about what was "before" the big bang, and second, physics break down after the big bang. Either way, your conception of "time" doesn't appear until even after the big bang. Same with space.

Once again, back to the infinity problem. This is doing nothing but picking up the problem and placing it at a different location. The problem is still there. With infinity it doesn't matter how long or how slow something is. The same absurdity will apply regardless of ones interpretation or concept of time.

Clearly, we aren't reading much of the same metaphysical literature.

I guess not

Current physics suggests that your understanding of time, space, and existence is flawed.

Current physics also show that the universe began to exist at some point in the finite past. If something "begins" to exist, an external cause is inevitable.

But God didn't? And if God need not come from somewhere, why need the universe?

I answered this already!! The universe needs to come from somewhere because we have evidence that it BEGAN to exist and therefore ISN'T eternal. The only thing in the dictionary that is defined with the characteristics and attributes to create a universe is........God :yes:

Not really. If God exists, wonderful. I'm just interested in knowing things, not dogma.

And if God doesn't exist, we are no different than flies or insects. So if someone kills someone you love, it would be the same thing as YOU swatting a fly.

So whose to say that the "singularity" behaves like the rock? Or that it isn't "transcendent" (whatever that entails)?

Transcendent means to exist BEYOND something. And if the singularity is what you defined above, how can it behave like anything?

Ok. The singularity was a transcendent entity. Metaphysical problem solved.

The singularity is a physical entity. But physics didn't exist prior to its expansion. So how could the singularity be the origin of its own domain? Hmmm

Because all our yesterdays have lighted fools/The way to dusty death.

Sure..

I guess it's turtles, all the way down.

Yup, the Teenage Mutant Ninja ones

There are nolocal correlations instantaneously and which are space-like seperated (and can be so to an arbitrary degree). What's the "precausal condition" for these?

Say what?

So what you are saying is that were it not for the fact that the universe is the way it is, we wouldn't be here. But we are here, which means it is that way. And if it weren't, we wouldn't be.

So if I were to punch you in the face and say "if it weren't for the fact that my hands turned into a fist and it connected with your eye with force, you wouldn't have a black eye. But you do have a black eye, which means that I hit you, and if I didn't hit you, it wouldn't be there"

How is that for an answer :slap:

And you know this because...?

Research from qualified and leading figures on the subject matter.

Yes, yes, no, and yes. My field involves biology, physics, and mathematics. Cosmology (like many things) I research because I am interested.

Oh so you are have a major in biology, physics, AND mathematics?? Do I understand correctly?

Not really. Because the issue isn't what I have degrees in, but what I study and the extent to which I am familiar with particular topics. Likewise for you.

Well I agree. The only problem (for you) is that everything that I've said has a history of being scientifically confirmed through experiment and observation, which is supposed to be what science is all about.

But even were you correct, it would not be a battle for the pantheist. Or the Wiccan. Or the Muslim. Or any number of others whose understanding of creation and existence differs from yours yet is not naturalism.

My point is simply that there has to be a supernatural and transcendent entity beyond the natural realm, and that is based on my interpretation of the evidence. Now who this entity is is not addressed at this point, as the kalam doesn't deal with the "who" specifically by name title or religious affiliation. The point is to first establish the need for a transcendent Creator, and thats all I attempted to do.

The fact that spacetime requires a particular structure and that this didn't exist even after the big bang.

The universe began to exist, that's the focal point.

Sure. Or no. But if you want to say how likely something is, you need to know the probability space.

Address the analogies please.

 

[LegionOnomaMoi]

But yeah, the Big Bang theory is has the most empirical evidence supporting it.

And this assessment is based upon your evalutation of current research and academic literature in the fields of physics, astronomy, and cosmology?

All of these other "pre-big bang" models, there is NO evidence for them.

And upon what do you base this? Have you read any scientific literature on the subject?

Apart from the lack of evidence, there is also the philosophical problem of infinity that these natural "eternalistic" models fail to address. These are not problems that you can just sweep under the rug, they have to be addressed.

They are.

Once again, back to the infinity problem. This is doing nothing but picking up the problem and placing it at a different location.

But apparently, all we need to do is define something as "transcendent" and then this problem disappears. However, as the singularity (and probably all reality at some level) doesn't exist in except in a transcendent state (i.e., the basic constituents of all matter are nonlocal entities inaccessible to us and in constant violation of classical causality.

Current physics also show that the universe began to exist at some point in the finite past.

Or not. But as you reject out of hand actual physics literature (yet quote none in return), it seems hard to defend any stance on the relationship between modern physics, ontology, and cosmology.

If something "begins" to exist, an external cause is inevitable.

Google "linguistic turn".

I answered this already!! The universe needs to come from somewhere because we have evidence that it BEGAN to exist and therefore ISN'T eternal.

But the singularity therefore existed in some "space" in which no time, physics, or anything else we are familiar with "classically" existed. It therefore transcends time and space.

And if God doesn't exist, we are no different than flies or insects. So if someone kills someone you love, it would be the same thing as YOU swatting a fly.

If god exists, what changes about the above?

Transcendent means to exist BEYOND something. And if the singularity is what you defined above, how can it behave like anything?

Because it is transcendent.

The singularity is a physical entity. But physics didn't exist prior to its expansion. So how could the singularity be the origin of its own domain? Hmmm

Because according to the standard model (the "big bang" theory), physics don't apply to the singularity.

Say what?

From the same paper quoted immediately above: "Though standard relativistic quantum field theory nominally incorporates ‘causality’ by requiring that spacelike observables commute, it is by no means obvious that this requirement is appropriate for, and even consistent with, equations of motion which exhibit superluminal propagation of disturbances. In other words, it is largely an open question how to quantize relativistic media of the sort discussed above, media which permit superluminal signaling given appropriate initial conditions." (p. 392).

"For many years physicists believed that the existence of closed timelike curve (CTC) was only a theoretical possibility rather than a feasibility. A closed time like curve typically connects back on itself, for example, in the presence of a spacetime wormhole that could link a future spacetime point with a past spacetime point. However, there have been criticisms to the existence of CTCs and the “grandfather paradox” is one. But Deutsch proposed a computational model of quantum systems in the presence of CTCs and resolved this paradox by presenting a method for finding self-consistent solutions of CTC interactions in quantum theory" from Pati, Chakrabarty, & Agrawal "Quantum States, Entanglement and Closed Timelike Curves" (from the American Institute of Physics Conference Proceedings, 1384, 2011).

Moreover, as Tim Maudlin (1994) has shown, we can conceive of laws of transmission between spacelike separated events that could not allow us to pick out a particular Lorentz frame as privileged, which would be in violation of the principle of relativity. Maudlin's discussion focuses on the possibility of 'tachionic' signals that directly connect spacelike separated events. Dirac's theory provides us with an alternative mechanism for superluminal signaling: a combination of subluminal forward- and backward-causal processes." Sect. 4.3

Frisch, M. (2005). Inconsistency, Asymmetry, and NonLocality: A Philosophical Investigation of Classical Electrodynamics (Oxford University Press).

And leaving pure relativity issues for a moment, there is (apart from entanglement) a less contenscious component of a pseudo-superluminal effect in biosystems. All of QM concerns activity at a sufficiently "small" spacelike region, and although it is possible to use QM equations instead of its classical counterparts, it's generally considered both inconvenient and unnecessary. However, although this "unnecessary" used to include molecular processes in biological systems, the sufficiently small levels of analysis at which violations of the 2nd law of thermodynamics which occur seem to include relevant processes in biological systems. In other words, to borrow a section header from Bellac's paper "The role of probabilities in physics" (Progress in Biophysics and Molecular Biology vol. 110; 2012), "Time’s arrow is blurred in small (e.g. biological) systems". Even in Hollowood and Shore's in "The refractive index of curved spacetime: The fate of causality in QED" (Nuclear Physics B 795; 2008), which sought to preserve causality against the the violations of superluminal velocities entailed in Kramers-Kronig, only "succeeded" (i.e., they said they did) at the macroscopic levell. In their work to resolve "the outstanding problem" of "how to reconcile the prediction of a superluminal phase velocity at low frequency with causality", they found that "[r]emarkably, the resolution involves the violation of analyticity calling into question micro-causality in curved spacetime."

"Quantum systems exhibit particle- or wavelike behavior depending on the experimental apparatus they are confronted by. This wave-particle duality is at the heart of quantum mechanics. Its paradoxical nature is best captured in the delayed-choice thought experiment, in which a photon is forced to choose a behavior before the observer decides what to measure. Here, we report on a quantum delayed-choice experiment in which both particle and wave behaviors are investigated simultaneously. The genuinely quantum nature of the photon’s behavior is certified via nonlocality, which here replaces the delayed choice of the observer in the original experiment. We observed strong nonlocal correlations, which show that the photon must simultaneously behave both as a particle and as a wave." A Quantum Delayed-Choice Experiment

Research from qualified and leading figures on the subject matter.

Care to name some?

Oh so you are have a major in biology, physics, AND mathematics?? Do I understand correctly?

Do you understand that these are not necessarily seperate fields? In other words, someone dealing with neurophysiology and brain dynamics along with data analysis (i.e., me) cannot do this without a knowledge of biology, mathematics, and physics.

 

[ArtieE]

I think the main problem for believers in gods like Call is simply that reality has caught up with them. In the past you could blame gods for everything and get away with it because the real cause wasn't known. But as the real causes became known gods were no longer credible explanations. And now the only place believers can squeeze in their gods is before the big bang because we still don't know what happened then. When we do find out where are they going to try to squeeze their gods in then?

 

[Call_of_the_Wild]

And this assessment is based upon your evalutation of current research and academic literature in the fields of physics, astronomy, and cosmology?

It is not based upon mines, but those that are within the field. In contemporary cosmology, it is a scientific given that the big bang theory has the most evidence for it. To deny this is to deny science.

And upon what do you base this? Have you read any scientific literature on the subject?

Tell ya what, read Roger Penrose's "Time-Asymmetry and Quantum Gravity", or Hugh Ross on the precision of the finely tuned universe...

Reasons To Believe : Fine-Tuning For Life In The Universe

Or how about Paul Davies "Cosmic Jackpot: Why Our Universe is Just Right for Life"

Get back with me after you check those out.

​

They are.

Are they? I must of missed it

But apparently, all we need to do is define something as "transcendent" and then this problem disappears. However, as the singularity (and probably all reality at some level) doesn't exist in except in a transcendent state (i.e., the basic constituents of all matter are nonlocal entities inaccessible to us and in constant violation of classical causality.

Well, isn't it obvious that if something had a beginning, that whatever gave it its beginning had to transcend (exist beyond) it? Time had a beginning, so its originator could not itself be temporal. Doesn't that make sense?? Not only does this make sense, it is absolutely necessary. The singularity also had a beginning, as it was the initial point of the creation, so it did not transcend anything.

Or not. But as you reject out of hand actual physics literature (yet quote none in return), it seems hard to defend any stance on the relationship between modern physics, ontology, and cosmology.

Or not??

But the singularity therefore existed in some "space" in which no time, physics, or anything else we are familiar with "classically" existed. It therefore transcends time and space.

So why did the singularity expand in to what we call the "universe" if it existed for an infinite time?? As I stated before, there was NO causal agent before it, so why did it expand only 13.7 billion years ago. There had to be a reason, yet logically, there could not be a reason because nothing preceded it.

If god exists, what changes about the above?

If God exists, we are much more than a cosmic accident. If God exist there are objective moral rights or wrongs. If God exist there is purpose and hope. If he doesn't exist, there is no hope or objective purpose. Whether you lived your life as Adolf Hitler or Mother Teresa, it wouldn't matter.

Because it is transcendent.

You seem to be fascinated with the word "transcendent" . Not that this answer is adequate, I mean, what does transcendence have to do with the way that something behaves or whether or not it can behave in a certain way.

Because according to the standard model (the "big bang" theory), physics don't apply to the singularity.

Well, the fact that why it expanded is a physical phenomenon, isn't it?

Care to name some?

Sure, Stephen Hawking, Roger Penrose, Huge Ross, Paul Davies, Alexander Vilenkin, Alan Guth, Arvind Borde. Just a few names here and there.

Do you understand that these are not necessarily seperate fields? In other words, someone dealing with neurophysiology and brain dynamics along with data analysis (i.e., me) cannot do this without a knowledge of biology, mathematics, and physics.

However you want to put it, the fact still remains. What came first, the veins, or the blood, the skin, or the skeleton?

 

[mayuboar]

if the supernatural exists, it is then part of our existance and therefore is a part of nature yes.

 

[ArtieE]

Reasons To Believe : Fine-Tuning For Life In The Universe

Or how about Paul Davies "Cosmic Jackpot: Why Our Universe is Just Right for Life"

Get back with me after you check those out.

Just some questions regarding the list by Dr. Hugh Ross.

1. Has it occurred to you that life exists in the universe because of the conditions stated in the list instead of that the conditions stated in the list was especially created to make life? Has it occurred to you that a hole in the ground hasn't been especially created and perfectly shaped to fit a pool of water but that the water adapts to the shape of the hole?

2. Can you tell me why some kind of life couldn't possibly have evolved in the universe if any or all of the conditions in the list had been slightly different?

 

[roman2819]

People won't be asking for evidence of God if they really believe there is no God.

 

[tumbleweed41]

People won't be asking for evidence of God if they really believe there is no God.

I demand evidence for Bigfoot when it is claimed it exists. Does that mean I actually believe in Bigfoot?

BTW, I do believe in a God, I just understand that there is no objective evidence for a God.

 

[Call_of_the_Wild]

Just some questions regarding the list by Dr. Hugh Ross.

1. Has it occurred to you that life exists in the universe because of the conditions stated in the list instead of that the conditions stated in the list was especially created to make life?

It is the SPECIFIED complexity Artie. The list that HR gave, if any of those constants were off by just a small fraction, human life would not be possible. You don't get that kind of complexity by a blind and mindless process of trial and error, you get it by a intelligent mind that engineered the whole process in the direction that he wanted it to go.

Has it occurred to you that a hole in the ground hasn't been especially created and perfectly shaped to fit a pool of water but that the water adapts to the shape of the hole?

And has it occurred to you that a building project may start off with a whole in the ground? But just because there is a hole in the ground does not imply intelligent design, it is the building as a whole that implies this. It started off with a hole in the ground, and things got progressively more complex as the project went on.

2. Can you tell me why some kind of life couldn't possibly have evolved in the universe if any or all of the conditions in the list had been slightly different?

The answers you seek can be found here.

The Universe: Evidence for Its Fine Tuning

 

[Call_of_the_Wild]

I demand evidence for Bigfoot when it is claimed it exists. Does that mean I actually believe in Bigfoot?

BTW, I do believe in a God, I just understand that there is no objective evidence for a God.

There is no objective evidence against God either, but yet, either he exists or he doesn't. I think the preponderance of evidence points to the direction of a supernatural being, as the evidence that is for God has not be successfully refuted as of yet and until it does, I am confident that I have the truth.

 

[ArtieE]

It is the SPECIFIED complexity Artie. The list that HR gave, if any of those constants were off by just a small fraction, human life would not be possible. You don't get that kind of complexity by a blind and mindless process of trial and error, you get it by a intelligent mind that engineered the whole process in the direction that he wanted it to go.

Are you actually saying that a god created all the physical laws and the universe itself so that you can exist? Or might it not be more likely that you exist because of the physical laws and the universe exists? Just for fun since you mentioned trial and error: Parallel universes
"In a new study, Stanford physicists Andrei Linde and Vitaly Vanchurin have calculated the number of all possible universes, coming up with an answer of 10^10^16."

And has it occurred to you that a building project may start off with a whole in the ground? But just because there is a hole in the ground does not imply intelligent design, it is the building as a whole that implies this. It started off with a hole in the ground, and things got progressively more complex as the project went on.

So exactly what was it that this god of yours actually created?

 

[fantome profane]

And has it occurred to you that a building project may start off with a whole in the ground? But just because there is a hole in the ground does not imply intelligent design, it is the building as a whole that implies this. It started off with a hole in the ground,

Would that be a whole hole? Or perhaps just half a hole, which would only be part of the whole. But even half of a hole is still a hole, and a hole is a whole hole. And if "God" made this hole, this whole hole, then it would be a holy hole. A wholly holy hole.

 

[Ouroboros]

God exists and God doesn't exist. It all depends on the answer to the question "What is God?"

 

[LegionOnomaMoi]

To deny this is to deny science.

Strange that scientists seem to disagree with you here.
"Some thinkers like to identify the Big Bang as the beginning of time, at least for our universe, but so far we really do not understand the meaning of space–time at the Big Bang. The universe was then extremely small, dense, hot, and energetic. The laws of physics at those extreme conditions are not fully understood yet; therefore, some of the current views about what exactly happened could change as we learn more in the future." p. 22
Bars & Terning (2010) Extra Dimensions in Space and Time, a volume from the edited (i.e., peer-reviewed) series Multiversal Journeys.

"In 1983, a proposal for the shape of the quantum universe below the Planck scale was put forward by Jim Hartle, from the University of California, Santa Barbara, and Stephen Hawking. Hartle and Hawking propose that the universe be as simple as possible. They suggest that the space-time resemble a sphere below the Planck length. In this way, they ensure that the universe has no origin, in the sense that it has no edge or boundary." p. 119 (italics in original; emphasis added).

J. E. Lidsey (2000). The Bigger Bang. Cambridge University Press.

Amoroso & Rauscher, in their monograph The Holographic Anthropic Multiverse (vol. 43 of Series on Knots and Everything; World Scientific, 2009), state the purpose of their volume as follows: "The aim of this volume is to provide sufficient insight that Big Bang cosmology may finally be falsified".
They also note "Steinhardt and Turok have proposed a cosmology where space and time always existed. By using string theory they claim the Big Bang was a bridge to a pre-existing universe. Using this idea they speculate that individual creations could undergo eternal successions, with trillions of years of evolution between each Big Crunch and Big Bang."

Heck, every year phyicists and cosmologists get together to talk about problems with the standard model. The proceedings from the fifth international conference Physics Beyond the Standard Models of Particles, Cosmology, and Astrophysics was published in 2011, following the conference itself, which was held in 2010.

Tell ya what, read Roger Penrose's "Time-Asymmetry and Quantum Gravity", or Hugh Ross on the precision of the finely tuned universe...

Because Penrose's paper is outdated for one. In addtion, I own his book The Road to Reality. He states (p. 758) that "We do not have much idea, for example, what conditions are actually necessary for the production of sentient life."

Shortly after the above, he gives a more complete description of his disdain for the view you hold (emphases added): "My impression is that the strong anthropic principle is often used as a kind of 'cop-out', when genuine theoretical considerations have seemed to reach their limit...It seems to me that with a spatially infinite and essentially uniform universe (e.g., K ≤ 0, in the standard models) the strong anthropic principle is almost useless for tuning physical parameters, beyond demanding that the physical laws be such that sentience is possible (which is, itself fairly unusable, since we do not know the prerequisites for sentience). For if sentient life is possile at all, then we expect that, in a spatially infinite universe, it will occur. This will happen even if the conditions for sentience are extraordinarily unlikely to come about in any given finite region of the universe." (p. 760).

So why would you recommend I read someone who clearly doesn't share your view? And as for your link to Ross' list, as I own The Cosmological Anthropic Principle, as well as the edited volume Fitness of the Cosmos for Life: Biochemistry and Fine-Tuning (Cambridge Astrobiology), the National Research Council's The Limits of Organic Life, Origins and Evolution of Life: An Astrobiological Perspective (Cambridge Astrobiology), along with countless papers, monographs, volumes, etc., on spacetime, cosmology, quantum field theory, etc., I don't find a list of terms particularly impressive.

Or how about Paul Davies

Or Ward and Brownlee's Rare Earth? Well, I read Rare Earth, and I've read a lot of Davies' work. I have, for example, the volume The Re-Emergence of Emergence: The Emergentist Hypothesis from Science to Religion he co-edited with Clayton, which also contains a paper by him. Same with the volume Quantum Aspects of Life.

Here again, however, you seem to be quoting someone who fundamentally disagrees with you. In Davies' paper "Why is the universe just right for life?" (from the edited volume Astronomy and Civilization in the New Enlightenment), he writes (emphasis added): "Monotheistic theologians, for whom God plays the role of super-turtle, have had longer to think about this problem. They believe, or at least some do, that the threat of ultimate absurdity is countered by positing that God is a so-called necessary being. This is an attempt (and one that is not obviously successful) at describing a “self-levitation” mechanism – God explains God’s own existence – without which we would be right back to arbitrariness, reasonlessness and absurdity: if God exists reasonlessly, then the theistic explanation is also absurd."

Get back with me after you check those out.

​

Done and done. Or at least, I've read far more on this subject including works by the authors you mention, and they disagree with you. Books like Rare Earth or other academic works on the "fine-tuned" nature of the universe do not in general either argue for a creator, or argue that this "tuning" entails one. There are exceptions, of course, but they are the minority. And they don't include Penrose or Davies.​

I must of missed it

That's because you don't read the scientific literature.

Well, isn't it obvious

Obvious doesn't mean right. As was pointed it by Petkov in Relativity and the Nature of Spacetime, had scientists been less attached to Aristotelian views of space, time, and cause, and more inclined to question their basic assumptions, we could have developed Einstein's model of spacetime centuries earlier. But it seems "obvious" that space and time are different, so it wasn't until a long series of accidents, developments within mathematics and physics, mistakes, and some mathematical shots in the dark that we finally developed the modern theories of relativity (and therefore spacetime). And the fact that quantum reality seems completely at odds with what is "obvious", yet is in fact somehow what all reality actually is, is still presenting difficulties.

Or not??

Yes. See above.

As I stated before, there was NO causal agent before it, so why did it expand only 13.7 billion years ago. There had to be a reason, yet logically, there could not be a reason because nothing preceded it.

Can something be in multiple places at once? Can it interact instantaneously across arbitrarily great distances with other things? Can it seem to be one thing when you look at it one way, and something totally different when you look at it another way? Can it exist according to a logic which is totally different than what we are used to? According to quantum physics, the answer is: yes.

If God exist there are objective moral rights or wrongs.

How does god make morality objective? If God says X is wrong, how is that not just God imposing subjective morality upon humanity?

If God exist there is purpose and hope. If he doesn't exist, there is no hope or objective purpose.

Sartre even quotes Dostoevsky in his essay: "Dostoïevsky avait écrit : “Si Dieu n'existait pas, tout serait permis.” C'est là le point de départ de l'existentialisme. En effet, tout est permis si Dieu n'existe pas, et par conséquent l'homme est délaissé, parce qu'il ne trouve ni en lui, ni hors de lui une possibilité de s'accrocher."

"Dostoevsky has written: 'If God didn't exist, everything would be permitted.' This is the starting point of Existentialism. Indeed, everything IS permitted if God doesn't exist, and as a consequence man is forsaken, because he can find neither within himself, nor apart from himself, anything to cling to."

"Wohin ist Gott?...ich will es euch sagen! Wer haben ihn getötet..Was taten wir, als wir diese Erde von ihrer Sonne losketteten? Wohin bewegt sie sich nun? Wohin bewegen wir uns? Fort von allen Sonnen? Stürzen wir nicht fortwährend? ...Irren wir nicht wie durch ein unendliches Nichts? Haucht uns nicht der leere Raum an? Ist es nicht kälter geworden? Kommt nicht immerfort die Nacht und mehr Nacht? "
"Where is God? I will tell you. We have killed him...What did we do, when we loosed this earth from its sun? Where is it going now? Where are we ourselves going? Away from all suns? Do we not plummet unceasingly?...Do we not stray as though through an unending nothingness? Does not the void breath upon us? Has it not become colder? Comes there now not ever night and more night?" Nietzsche's Der fröhliche Wissenschaft.

Sure, Stephen Hawking, Roger Penrose, Huge Ross, Paul Davies, Alexander Vilenkin, Alan Guth, Arvind Borde. Just a few names here and there.

Thanks for the names. Now how many of these authors have you actually read something of, and what have you read by them?

 

[RogerTheAtheist]

A claim is as justifiable as the evidence that supports it. No god claim has met the burden of proof, yet there is proof of often conflicting natural explanations in multiple fields of science. Over time, supernatural causes were replaced with natural ones as understanding of reality grew. Demon possession was replaced by germ theory, and so on. If there is a god, he's doing a really good job of hiding himself from humanity.

 

[ChristineES]

Let's just get right down to it. I am tired of being drawn between accepting facts and fighting the natural desire humanity seems to have to believe in God. I personally miss my days as a believer, and despite most believers thinking most atheists will never change their minds, I am more than happy to. In fact, I used to be a believer in spirituality and such until I was defeated past the point of no return

So, enough of the damn games. Right here, provide your evidence of God that cannot be refuted and, atheists, refute what can be refuted. Let's just end this nonsense.

I don't recall anyone on the RF forcing someone else to believe in God. If I say I believe in God, it doesn't mean I am telling anyone else they HAVE to believe in God- I am sure that goes for most theists. God isn't nonsense to me.

 

[1137]

I forgot about this thread; but basically I got that there's nothing to suggest God does exist, though we cant KNOW with certainty, making it irrelevant if one does.

 

[ChristineES]

I forgot about this thread; but basically I got that there's nothing to suggest God does exist, though we cant KNOW with certainty, making it irrelevant if one does.

There is something to suggest to some of us that God exists, or we would not believe in Him. It just doesn't suggest it to others. And there isn't any scientific proof.

 

[1137]

There is something to suggest to some of us that God exists, or we would not believe in Him. It just doesn't suggest it to others. And there isn't any scientific proof.

Fair enough