Scientific evidence / arguments for God

[Call_of_the_Wild]

Dang, you're brilliant.

The same paradox problem will happen if God existed as a sentient/thinking being. When did his thinking start?

This is a fallacy in the form of a loaded question. You are assuming that God's thinking began. God could have had a eternal will to create the universe, so in that sense his thinking never began.

If God one day decided to create the Universe, it means that based on his infinity, he could never have reached that point of doing it.

Again, God could have had a eternal will to create the universe, so he never "decided" to do anything".

In other words, if God is the solution to the problem of First Cause, God can't be sentient, and that will result in a followup question, "who are you praying to, if he can't think or answer?"

God is the only way one can escape the problem of infinity, therefore a First Cause is absolutely necessary for anything to exist besides himself.

 

[Call_of_the_Wild]

Good point. If someone is going to object to the universe having an infinite past (e.g., eternality) then it would be hypocritical to ignore the issue you just raised.

Far from hypocritically ignoring the issue, let me take a stab at it. If one was to argue that God came from an infinite past, then yes, it would be hypocritical. But of course, that isn't the argument. The argument is that God, before he created the universe, existed timelessly, or atemporal. There was no time before the creation of the universe. God created the universe, and at that creation he STEPPED in to time, and became temporal ever since. Time is a creation of God, and it was created at the moment he created the universe. This makes perfect sense, because you can't have a universe without time, and you can't have matter without space. All three had to come in to being at once, not separately.

People tend to think about infinities incorrectly. Infinity isn't a process, it's not moving your proverbial finger across a line or counting up and just never stopping: it's a thing. It's not that you have to "get there," it's already there.

True, depending on context.

 

[Call_of_the_Wild]

It has to do with someone sitting in a chair. I didn't get it either.

Kind of the same analogy I gave with the rock. If a man is sitting perfectly still in a chair, he never moved. Then, all of a sudden, he begins to stand up. It isn't from the moment that he begins to move that time begins. That is because he went from "sitting perfectly still", to "moving". That is a change, and with change comes time. But BEFORE he moved, there was no time, because there was no change. Now of course we are talking in terms of absolute beginnings here.

 

[Orias]

I look at things this way. "God" is a scientific creation.

 

[Ouroboros]

This is a fallacy in the form of a loaded question.

No, it's not. I don't understand how you managed to think that.

You are assuming that God's thinking began. God could have had a eternal will to create the universe, so in that sense his thinking never began.

You're missing the point. The same Hilbert's Hotel Paradox argument that is used for eternal past can be used on God's eternal past and God's eternal past thinking. The conclusion of eternal past paradox is that it must've begun, the same must then go for God. It's the same paradox applied to the same situation, only two different objects. Time or God.

Again, God could have had a eternal will to create the universe, so he never "decided" to do anything".

Then it never was a time when it happened. If there's an eternal time of will to create the universe, or if there was an eternal time before you existed, it's the same problem and falls under the same paradox. Kalam stands and falls on a premise that must promise that God came to existence at the same time as the First Cause, or the underlying arguments and premises falter.

God is the only way one can escape the problem of infinity, therefore a First Cause is absolutely necessary for anything to exist besides himself.

Only if he's nothing. If nothing existed before something, then not-nothing is not an answer. It's only a word trick.

 

[Call_of_the_Wild]

No, it's not. I don't understand how you managed to think that.

Yes it is. You asked "When did his thinking start", this assumes that his thinking started. A loaded question if I ever saw one.

You're missing the point. The same Hilbert's Hotel Paradox argument that is used for eternal past can be used on God's eternal past and God's eternal past thinking. The conclusion of eternal past paradox is that it must've begun, the same must then go for God. It's the same paradox applied to the same situation, only two different objects. Time or God.

No it isn't the same. The argument is that there had to be one Uncaused Cause, and that is due to the problems with infinity. No one is not arguing that God is infinite in terms of time.

Then it never was a time when it happened.

Exactly, there was never a time when it happened nor is that the argument.

If there's an eternal time of will to create the universe, or if there was an eternal time before you existed, it's the same problem and falls under the same paradox.

But thats the point, there was never an eternal time of will. If God never began to think, there was never a moment before or after. So his eternal will never "began". For example, if you've been sitting in a chair for eternity, and you never ever moved, it would not make sense for someone to ask you "When did you take a seat". You never took a seat, yet, you've been sitting. If there was no moments prior to you sitting, and no moment AFTER you sat, then there was no time.

Kalam stands and falls on a premise that must promise that God came to existence at the same time as the First Cause, or the underlying arguments and premises falter.

Um, God IS the First Cause..

Only if he's nothing. If nothing existed before something, then not-nothing is not an answer. It's only a word trick.

 

[Ouroboros]

Yeah...

I can tell that we're no way near to undersand each other or our arguments, so I'm going to let it go just with that I don't agree with what you're saying. Continuing would be just an endless debate.

 

[Orias]

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

Precisely.

Its a test.

 

[Call_of_the_Wild]

Yeah...

I can tell that we're no way near to undersand each other or our arguments, so I'm going to let it go just with that I don't agree with what you're saying. Continuing would be just an endless debate.

Fair enough:beach:

 

[Ouroboros]

Fair enough:beach:

:bow:

 

[Rev Hydrogen]

Science default negative methodology and religion suffer different conclusions about the cause of the physical world.

But this does not mean that aspects religion are immune to the inquiry process that science provides. Creation for example, can be dissected like a rabbit in a lab.
This rabbit is very uninteresting to science with the exception of the cognitive process which leads to the acceptance and maintenance of that belief set.

 

[Ouroboros]

But this does not mean that aspects religion are immune to the inquiry process that science provides. Creation for example, can be dissected like a rabbit in a lab.

True.

And that's how science started, and the evidence led them away from a specific creation. The research hundreds of years ago was to prove and show how God did it, and it ultimately led to theory of evolution, relativity, quantum mechanics, etc. Science didn't start out to disprove God. It started out to support God's Creation. So for hundreds of years, Creation Science has been failing. So it's about time to realize that "Creation" is what this is. God, if he/she/it exists created the world this way, the way we now know it in science. That's Creation.

This rabbit is very uninteresting to science with the exception of the cognitive process which leads to the acceptance and maintenance of that belief set.

One reason why there's a constant conflict between religion and science is because science points to what and how it is, while religion points to what we want it to be. Only if we can integrate and combine our search for truth and life based on using the proper tools for the proper things, we can move forward and perhaps reach some harmony between science and religion.

As long as many outspoken religious people are denying well established and proven facts of science, most scientists will reject religion. Not until religion can incorporate the truths of science can science and religion learn to co-operate. They have different goals. Different methods. But both are necessary for humanity.

 

[idea]

... One reason why there's a constant conflict between religion and science is because science points to what and how it is, while religion points to what we want it to be....

I think science answers what and how, while religion answers "why".... or perhaps both deal in the what/how/why's of it all, only science is more materialistic in it's concerns, while religion is more concerned with the non-materialistic matter of life (love, morality, thoughts, etc. etc.)

Science and religion share the same process of inquiry though, both can be tested, and experimented with... both can be verified through the fruits of those experiments.

 

[Rev Hydrogen]

EG Christianity was an attempt to explain the non physical world
as well as the physical world (for continuity sake) 2000 odd y.a. So it was not only providing the why but the what and how.

Hence we also have to deal with 'Bible Physics'.
-the periodic intentional suspension of the order of things
by non material agency.

The entrails of the religious rabbit contain a collection of fantastical hypotheses easily exposed by reason and
with modern tools. Creation is the antithesis of science.

Yet the sacred texts can be cut and pasted to
mean anything to the needy ego.

If we are mostly slaves to ego, and ego only
has 2 modes- Reason and Imagination.
So if your belief set is not rested in reason then it is supported
by your imagination and impression memories as distinct from
factual memory.

..from this angle...
Adherents to command regions are "Imaginationists".
(since they have never met the god they have a deal with.)

Atheists (tend to be) "Negative Defaultists".
Since their belief set is aligned with a methodology of
exploration based solely on the reduction of the physical realm
to universal components. But that will not provide the Why.

Sort of not interested until : you show me a physical god
candidate as a lab rabbit to dissect and
we can go from there.

If a phenomena can be demonstrated
but not explained then it becomes unexplained science and
open to theory.
OK for science to go about it's business like that butwe are
more than ego. A truth that becomes the key to understanding
the Why.

God (if existent) is not to be encountered in ego.


(where ego here is defined as: "I, aware of my experience.)

 

[Call_of_the_Wild]

Creation for example, can be dissected like a rabbit in a lab.

Dissect away...please

 

[Introvert]

Sorry, but there is no scientific evidence for the existence of god. If you had evidence you wouldn't really need "faith" in the first place.

 

[Windwalker]

Sorry, but there is no scientific evidence for the existence of god. If you had evidence you wouldn't really need "faith" in the first place.

And not having faith, you don't have God. Does science alone fulfill your life in every way? Is it the sole validator of your life experience for you? BTW, experience is evidence.

 

[PolyHedral]

And not having faith, you don't have God. Does science alone fulfill your life in every way? Is it the sole validator of your life experience for you? BTW, experience is evidence.

Some evidence is better than others.

 

[Introvert]

And not having faith, you don't have God. Does science alone fulfill your life in every way? Is it the sole validator of your life experience for you? BTW, experience is evidence.

Is science the only alternative? I am not a scientist. My life is fulfilled by many things, and I think the universe is beautiful enough by itself that I don't need stories about a god to make it any more fulfilled.

 

[Windwalker]

Some evidence is better than others.

That's very true. Which is why demanding scientific proof of God is ridiculous. It's not the right set of tools to look at it with. It's like trying to understand Hamlet using particle physics.