Evidence for God from Science

Philosophy is dead the moment people don't care about the "WHY".

PaulSacramento wrote:Philosophy is dead the moment people don't care about the "WHY".

Oh, you know, its not and wont be "dead". For sure people wont stop wondering "why", tho the q. may get framed around different assumptions and understandings.

I took one philosophy course, and found it interesting, and actually pretty useful.

i guess some people like to have endless discussions or debates about some philosophical point, but it seems tiresome to me, and the general opinion among students is that the most mixed up bunch on campus are the philosophy students.

1over137 wrote:[]

Byblos said: "From reason alone we can prove the existance of a timeless, immaterial, omniscient, omnipotent first mover."

yes, I did see the assertion, but I kind of dont think I will get any satisfactory explanation.

Audie wrote:

Byblos wrote:

Audie wrote:A few posts back you said " scientific proofs"

Yes, I said the words 'scientific proofs' but not in the context of proofs for God's existance. I will quote myself:

Byblos wrote:If you don't think phylosophical proofs are possible then you've just singlehandedly dismantled every rational argument ever made. And that includes scientific proofs.

I think the contaxt is clear what I am referring to are general scientific proofs (e.g. mathematical proofs).


In any case, we can go in either direction, philosophy (proof) or science (evidence). Your preference.

I never heard of a "general scientific proof", math in not science, and it is my understanding that science does not "do" proof, so, I really dont know where you are coming from in this.

You're too hung up on 2 words taken completely out of context. Let me rephrase my original statement to make it crystal clear what I meant:

Byblos wrote:If you don't think phylosophical proofs are possible then you've just singlehandedly dismantled every rational argument ever made. And that includes scientific proofs knowledge.

Better? Can we move on now?

Audie wrote:

1over137 wrote:[]

Byblos said: "From reason alone we can prove the existance of a timeless, immaterial, omniscient, omnipotent first mover."

yes, I did see the assertion, but I kind of dont think I will get any satisfactory explanation.

Made up your mind already? I'm ready to back up my assertion. Waiting on you to specifiy whether or not you want to go ahead with proof from philosophy or evidence from science.

Byblos wrote:

Audie wrote:

Byblos wrote:

Audie wrote:A few posts back you said " scientific proofs"

Yes, I said the words 'scientific proofs' but not in the context of proofs for God's existance. I will quote myself:

Byblos wrote:If you don't think phylosophical proofs are possible then you've just singlehandedly dismantled every rational argument ever made. And that includes scientific proofs.

I think the contaxt is clear what I am referring to are general scientific proofs (e.g. mathematical proofs).


In any case, we can go in either direction, philosophy (proof) or science (evidence). Your preference.

I never heard of a "general scientific proof", math in not science, and it is my understanding that science does not "do" proof, so, I really dont know where you are coming from in this.

You're too hung up on 2 words taken completely out of context. Let me rephrase my original statement to make it crystal clear what I meant:

Byblos wrote:If you don't think phylosophical proofs are possible then you've just singlehandedly dismantled every rational argument ever made. And that includes scientific proofs knowledge.

Better? Can we move on now?

Context or no context, scientific proof is an oxymoron. Whether philosophy can claim jurisdiction over all of rationality is open, I suppose, to philosophical discussion.

Whether things can be proved to a philosophers satisfaction doesnt much concern me, honestly, and most especially if the philosopher is of the opinion that there are scientific proofs, because then Im not real likely to take them seriously on anything.

If someone has a not overelaborate phil. proof of god, I'd probably read it, to see what they had to say. Whether I would take it as actually being proof, probably not.

Byblos wrote:

Audie wrote:

1over137 wrote:[]

Byblos said: "From reason alone we can prove the existance of a timeless, immaterial, omniscient, omnipotent first mover."

yes, I did see the assertion, but I kind of dont think I will get any satisfactory explanation.

Made up your mind already? I'm ready to back up my assertion. Waiting on you to specifiy whether or not you want to go ahead with proof from philosophy or evidence from science.

If you feel you have evidence for God, from science, sure, lets hear it.

^ I corrected my statement. I have nothing else to say about that.

So you're not interested in philosophical proofs, fine. I just thought for someone who rejects God's existance as you seem to be, they'd absolutely jump at the chance to correct so-called 'proofs' considering they are much stronger than evidence. But such is the case, so let's move on.

Audie wrote:If you feel you have evidence for God, from science, sure, lets hear it.

Good. Before we begin, I'd like to ask you a question or 2 so we both have a better pciture of the other's stance. If you have questions also, I'd be happy to answer them.

Where do you stand vis-a-vis cosmogony and its various subjects? I.e. origin of the universe, multi-verse, cyclical, oscillating, etc. etc.

Byblos wrote:^ I corrected my statement. I have nothing else to say about that.

So you're not interested in philosophical proofs, fine. I just thought for someone who rejects God's existance as you seem to be, they'd absolutely jump at the chance to correct so-called 'proofs' considering they are much stronger than evidence. But such is the case, so let's move on.

Audie wrote:If you feel you have evidence for God, from science, sure, lets hear it.

Good. Before we begin, I'd like to ask you a question or 2 so we both have a better pciture of the other's stance. If you have questions also, I'd be happy to answer them.

Where do you stand vis-a-vis cosmogony and its various subjects? I.e. origin of the universe, multi-verse, cyclical, oscillating, etc. etc.

i've seen a number of tries at proving God, and I've seen proof, so presented anyway, that its impossible to prove the existence of God.

I dont 'reject" God's existence any more than i do Bigfoot, or the elusive megaladon shark as a living thing. i dont believe any of those exist. i dont reject them.
How it seems to you, and how it actually is with me, are not the same here.

Regarding stronger than evidence, it may well be that a phil. proof would do better than any physical evidence for a god, there being none, in of course, my opinion.

As for origin or destiny of the universe, I do nt concern myself with that. I've listened to physicists, and i really cant wrap my brain around some of the concepts. I dont know if any of us could without a lot more math than I can bring to bear. Im inclined to think the universe is stranger than we are capable of grasping. We may possibly be better off or further along than is the cat trying to figure out the origin of catfood, thro' observation of philosophy, but then, maybe not.

I dont have an opinion on the origin of the universe

As for origin or destiny of the universe, I do nt concern myself with that. I've listened to physicists, and i really cant wrap my brain around some of the concepts. I dont know if any of us could without a lot more math than I can bring to bear. Im inclined to think the universe is stranger than we are capable of grasping. We may possibly be better off or further along than is the cat trying to figure out the origin of catfood, thro' observation of philosophy, but then, maybe not.

You state this and yet affrim that:

Regarding stronger than evidence, it may well be that a phil. proof would do better than any physical evidence for a god, there being none, in of course, my opinion.

I am confused because if openly admit that you can't understand the concept pf physics as it relates to the origin of the universe, how can you make a statement insinuating that there is NO evidence for God other than philosophy ( if that)?

You admit that you can't understand the physics of the universe BUT don't believe there is a God because the physics of the universe show there isn't one?
Is that your argument?

PaulSacramento wrote:

As for origin or destiny of the universe, I do nt concern myself with that. I've listened to physicists, and i really cant wrap my brain around some of the concepts. I dont know if any of us could without a lot more math than I can bring to bear. Im inclined to think the universe is stranger than we are capable of grasping. We may possibly be better off or further along than is the cat trying to figure out the origin of catfood, thro' observation of philosophy, but then, maybe not.

You state this and yet affrim that:

Regarding stronger than evidence, it may well be that a phil. proof would do better than any physical evidence for a god, there being none, in of course, my opinion.

I am confused because if openly admit that you can't understand the concept pf physics as it relates to the origin of the universe, how can you make a statement insinuating that there is NO evidence for God other than philosophy ( if that)?

You admit that you can't understand the physics of the universe BUT don't believe there is a God because the physics of the universe show there isn't one?
Is that your argument?

You may not be a theoretical astrophysicist but if you are, then you know more than I; still, I dont think anyone exactly has it nailed down, not by a long shot. So as it is, neither of us knows the origin of the universe. I dont know that it disqualifies me from having an opinion such as that I dont think some god did it.

I did not say that I cant understand the '"concept of physics", nor did I make the argument you thought of for me about how physics show there is no god. I said nothing remotely like that. Im curious how you got those ideas.


Words like "insinuate', "reject', 'admit" all have very negative uses, such as those to which you put them. None of those words are properly applied I gave an opinion about the lack of physical evidence for a god, there is nothing there that is an insinuation, not in tone or content. Nor did I reject (refuse to consider) nor admit (reluctantly confess).
anything.

Did I do something to offend, such as calls forthis aggressive tone from you?

Audie wrote:

Byblos wrote:^ I corrected my statement. I have nothing else to say about that.

So you're not interested in philosophical proofs, fine. I just thought for someone who rejects God's existance as you seem to be, they'd absolutely jump at the chance to correct so-called 'proofs' considering they are much stronger than evidence. But such is the case, so let's move on.

Audie wrote:If you feel you have evidence for God, from science, sure, lets hear it.

Good. Before we begin, I'd like to ask you a question or 2 so we both have a better pciture of the other's stance. If you have questions also, I'd be happy to answer them.

Where do you stand vis-a-vis cosmogony and its various subjects? I.e. origin of the universe, multi-verse, cyclical, oscillating, etc. etc.

i've seen a number of tries at proving God, and I've seen proof, so presented anyway, that its impossible to prove the existence of God.

But that is simply unture. It absolutely IS possible to prove the existance of God, only philosophically. Are we going to keep going in circles here? If you don't want to discuss the proof you don't have to but at the same time you can't keep asserting there's no proof.

Audie wrote:I dont 'reject" God's existence any more than i do Bigfoot, or the elusive megaladon shark as a living thing. i dont believe any of those exist. i dont reject them.
How it seems to you, and how it actually is with me, are not the same here.

I don't know if you've read my comments on the same subject in the Flying Spaghetti Monster thread. What you've stated above is simply assinine since God's existance can be shown from reason alone, as it can equally be shown that there can be one and only one God who is eternal, timeless, changeless, omniscient, and omnipotent. All of these characteristics can be shown from reaon alone (particlularly the oneness) to the exclusion of all other so-called gods such as the ones you mention above.

So you see if you want to be intellecutally honest when you look at the proofs presented you will have no choice but to conclude, at a minimum, that if there is a God, then there can only be one God and must have all these characteristics I mentioned. That is precisely why this type of argument you present is fallacious at best.

Audie wrote:Regarding stronger than evidence, it may well be that a phil. proof would do better than any physical evidence for a god, there being none, in of course, my opinion.

Lol, ok. You should get familiar with the Latin phrase then: "Quod gratis asseritur, gratis negatur."

Audie wrote:As for origin or destiny of the universe, I do nt concern myself with that. I've listened to physicists, and i really cant wrap my brain around some of the concepts. I dont know if any of us could without a lot more math than I can bring to bear. Im inclined to think the universe is stranger than we are capable of grasping. We may possibly be better off or further along than is the cat trying to figure out the origin of catfood, thro' observation of philosophy, but then, maybe not.

I dont have an opinion on the origin of the universe

Alrighty then, I guess we're done here. Good luck to you.

Audie wrote:You may not be a theoretical astrophysicist

While Paul and I are definitely not theoretical atrophysicists, we do have one on board but she is a queen, she doesn't engage mere peasants unless absolutely necessary (just kidding Hana ).

Audie wrote:but if you are, then you know more than I; still, I dont think anyone exactly has it nailed down, not by a long shot.

It may not be nailed down because it's science, which is never in the business of nailing anything down. That's why I went to great lengths to call it evidence. But the proponderance of the scientific evidence is overwhelmingly in favor of a creator.

Audie wrote:So as it is, neither of us knows the origin of the universe. I dont know that it disqualifies me from having an opinion such as that I dont think some god did it.

You can certainly have an opinion but as it stands now you're just a mere skeptic without one.

Well, I am not astrophysicist.
I do not engage a lot as I do not want to spread some false statements.

I now am thinking about how such a scientific proof of God could look like? That every time we would make an experiment and for example say to God to tell something or do something? Is He our toy or what?

When I studied physics (was nonbeliever that time) I always wondered about fundamental physics laws that are behind our universe, how it works, etc. To me, they point to a Creator.

PaulSacramento wrote:Philosophy is dead the moment people don't care about the "WHY".

That to me dear sir is like writing "the alphabet is dead".

@Audie, and those who study the English alphabet may also be some of the most mixed up people, but it doesn't stop it pervading the lives of us "more normal" in every which way.