• Welcome to Religious Forums, a friendly forum to discuss all religions in a friendly surrounding.

    Your voice is missing! You will need to register to get access to the following site features:
    • Reply to discussions and create your own threads.
    • Our modern chat room. No add-ons or extensions required, just login and start chatting!
    • Access to private conversations with other members.

    We hope to see you as a part of our community soon!

Science Proves Nature Was Created

Desert Snake

Veteran Member
God is more believable than "something we are incapable of understanding because we were born within this universe, and are conditioned for a certain set of physics."?

Think about it logically. Nothing comes from a void. The universe has a point where it began, we know this. However that means there had to be something to hold whatever the universe was before the 'beginning' event. That would be something we inherently cannot grasp. It would be utterly alien and unknowable. It would follow none of the physics we recognize because those things don't exist yet, and won't exist until the Event/Big Bang.
Keeping in mind that you are referring to a theory, in the first place, you are still faced with where the matter came from. Or, it isn't matter? Saying we cannot comprehend this, is not an argument. It's a non-argument. It's an ''I don't know''.
"Nothing" is much easier to say than "physics that aren't and matter that isn't".
That description sounds suspiciously like ''nothing'', or ''unknown'', actually. So, 'nothing', is fine, imo. If that is the theory being presented, then great; but it can't be both nothing, and something. That's obfuscation.
 
Last edited:

Copernicus

Industrial Strength Linguist
I don't mean to be rude, but more than I would like to discuss with you.

That may be my fault -I do not express myself very clearly sometimes -or understand the perspectives of other enough to make things clear to all at the same time -but if I read a post which is quite far removed from what I was saying and would require countering many points, I am reluctant to reply.
If you cannot reply or don't want to reply, I suppose we'll have to leave it. The problem is that you did reply. You said:
You are making assumptions about many things which are not accurate
I'm not asking for a comprehensive list. Just point out one or two of the most important ones, and that will help me to understand where you are coming from. Apologies, if I distorted what you said, misunderstood you, or misrepresented you.
 

Copernicus

Industrial Strength Linguist
Physicists do not believe that there is literally "nothing". All of physical reality is pervaded by a Higgs energy field. The Higgs boson, sometimes called the "God particle" mediates between that field and other particles to confer mass on them. (See Still Confused About the Higgs Boson? Read This)

So the "Big Bang" is thought to have resulted from natural forces that confer mass on particles (in so-called "particle theory"). The exact mechanism by which quantum fluctuation could lead to a "Big Bang" is not yet fully understood, but it is not beyond our means to understand it. We have already learned enough about the nature of physical reality to realize that reality is far more interesting than our ancient ancestors imagined. That is what gives modern civilization the ability to do things that the ancients could not even conceive of. They needed gods to explain natural phenomena. We have science and, for the time being, a "god particle", whose existence has been predicted and confirmed.
 

Bunyip

pro scapegoat
Well sure, you have a play on words - but a scientific proof is much more than a play on words.
 

Nietzsche

The Last Prussian
Premium Member
Keeping in mind that you are referring to a theory, in the first place, you are still faced with where the matter came from. Or, it isn't matter? Saying we cannot comprehend this, is not an argument. It's a non-argument. It's an ''I don't know''.
But it's not "I don't know". It's "we can't know specifically". It's something, clearly, but we don't have words to express it, because it's something that can no longer be expressed. The conditions that made it possible are gone. We can recreate the moment of 'detonation' and the moments just after it occurred so to speak(Large Hadron Collider), but nothing before that. Our senses are utterly useless in this because of how radically alien such a "pre-universe" situation would have to be. Time, matter, gravity, the strong & weak forces, electromagnetism and ect only came into being after the proto-state was gone. And because we would simply not exist without the interplay of the most basic building-blocks of reality, we're not equipped to perceive stuff before it. There is more in common between us and a black hole than between us and anything that was in the pre-universe.

That description sounds suspiciously like ''nothing'', or ''unknown'', actually. So, 'nothing', is fine, imo. If that is the theory being presented, ie literally nothing, then great; but it can't be both nothing, and something. That's obfuscation.
How is it obfuscation? Anyone who bothers to look into it will get it. It would be more obfuscating to say it was "something", because without a rather long explanation you're just going to confuse people.
 

Copernicus

Industrial Strength Linguist
Well sure, you have a play on words - but a scientific proof is much more than a play on words.
You talkin' ta me, Bunyip? You talkin' ta me?

ETA: Actually, all of science relies on metaphors--plays on words. Mathematics itself is grounded in metaphors.
 

Copernicus

Industrial Strength Linguist
I'm addressing the OP. The author is Entritonakin.

The argument presented as scientific proof that nature was created is not a scientific poof at all, just a little word play.
No problem, although the forum software flagged it as a reply to me. :) I agree that it was not a scientific proof, but I'm not sure he intended it as such. Maybe he can clarify.
 

Bunyip

pro scapegoat
No problem, although the forum software flagged it as a reply to me. :) I agree that it was not a scientific proof, but I'm not sure he intended it as such. Maybe he can clarify.
No worries.
I think when somebody says 'science proves.......', that is a claim that science has proven something - a scientific proof.
 

Etritonakin

Well-Known Member
If you cannot reply or don't want to reply, I suppose we'll have to leave it. The problem is that you did reply. You said:

I'm not asking for a comprehensive list. Just point out one or two of the most important ones, and that will help me to understand where you are coming from. Apologies, if I distorted what you said, misunderstood you, or misrepresented you.

That pervasive psychobabble 'you did reply and it's a problem' thing. Let's do leave it. It really would be best for everyone.
 

NewGuyOnTheBlock

Cult Survivor/Fundamentalist Pentecostal Apostate
*blind post*

Sheesh. Once again ...

Cosmology is not Evolution.
Chemistry is not Evolution.
Physics is not Evolution.

I wish people would get that into their heads.

At any rate.
The fact that everything must have a cause and the fact that one thing must exist before the next thing can not occur is evidence that everything must hae a cause and that one thing must exist before the next thing can occur; and nothing more.

The word "created" has the connotation of an intentional "creation" requiring a "creator". Evidence does not support this.
 

Etritonakin

Well-Known Member
*blind post*

Sheesh. Once again ...

Cosmology is not Evolution.
Chemistry is not Evolution.
Physics is not Evolution.

I wish people would get that into their heads.

At any rate.
The fact that everything must have a cause and the fact that one thing must exist before the next thing can not occur is evidence that everything must hae a cause and that one thing must exist before the next thing can occur; and nothing more.

The word "created" has the connotation of an intentional "creation" requiring a "creator". Evidence does not support this.


What percentage of all possible evidence do you now have?
 

NewGuyOnTheBlock

Cult Survivor/Fundamentalist Pentecostal Apostate
What percentage of all possible evidence do you now have?

I didn't read the link but I get the gist. The answer is totally irrelevant. The available evidence does not lead to the conclusion of an intelligent designer. To fill the unknown with God totally fails. "We don't know what created the universe, so it must have been God" is classic "argument from ignorance" and "god of the gaps" fallacy.

 

gnostic

The Lost One
*blind post*

Sheesh. Once again ...

Cosmology is not Evolution.
Chemistry is not Evolution.
Physics is not Evolution.

I wish people would get that into their heads.

Absolutely irritating, aren't they?

If they want to talk about the Big Bang then it has nothing to do with evolutionary biology. BB is cosmology, not biology, but some of these creationists can't seem to grasp that, no matter how many you explain this very distinction. It is no wonder they delusional see an invisible tutu-wearing fairy god when they read the bible.
 

Etritonakin

Well-Known Member
I didn't read the link but I get the gist. The answer is totally irrelevant. The available evidence does not lead to the conclusion of an intelligent designer. To fill the unknown with God totally fails. "We don't know what created the universe, so it must have been God" is classic "argument from ignorance" and "god of the gaps" fallacy.


Wasn't a link. I agree somewhat -but only inasmuch as presently available and purely physical evidence does not lead to the conclusion of an intelligent designer -especially not one of a very specific description which is known to be false.
Science is an excellent tool, but alone it is not a perfect tool for every job.

The answer very much lies in credibility -and credibility comes with evidence, time and experience. It also comes by looking in the right places.

I don't think there is any desperately urgent need to scientifically prove the existence of God -and I think that attempting to fill the gaps in others' understanding is usually futile even with valid points, but....

The answer is not irrelevant. Evidence is like pieces of a puzzle. The more evidence collected, the more is known -but also the more the general properties of the unknown can be known. So an and so forth until all is known -if possible.

Filling the unknown with God totally fails. I agree -but a gap known to have the characteristics and properties of "God" would be a different story.

Everything that leads to discovery of truth/facts might be called science, and we cannot rely on only one branch of science to discover the whole truth.

Physical science has disproved certain claims about God -but that is only one branch of science focused on specific claims -and NOT claims made by the bible itself.

Physical science would eventually support -or at least not contradict -the existence of any "God" which might exist -but it alone is not necessarily how such a God might initially be proved to exist.

Leaving the consideration of any possible intelligent design of the physical universe which preceded physical life for a moment....

Consider this direct quote from God (consider that a claim if you must).

Isa 46:9 Remember the former things of old: for I am God, and there is none else; I am God, and there is none like me,
Isa 46:10 Declaring the end from the beginning, and from ancient times the things that are not yet done, saying, My counsel shall stand, and I will do all my pleasure:

Prophecies written down in ancient times are certainly "things of old" -and if you are willing to consider them thoroughly -and with an open mind, you WILL -at the very least -find evidence that what has come to pass -the overall course of human history and the succession of kingdoms and nations -was known and recorded before it came to pass.
It IS proof of an extreme INTELLIGENCE -and DOES indicate that the extreme intelligence at least knew the DESIGN of things well enough to know the end results of the collective human lives which are based on a few elements. More evidence will show that he designed the end result -and all things which led to it (consider that a claim if you must).

King Nebuchadnezzar of Babylon had a dream (consider that a claim if you must). Daniel -without being told the dream -told the king what he dreamed -and what it meant.

Dan 2:37 Thou, O king, art a king of kings: for the God of heaven hath given thee a kingdom, power, and strength, and glory.
Dan 2:38 And wheresoever the children of men dwell, the beasts of the field and the fowls of the heaven hath he given into thine hand, and hath made thee ruler over them all. Thou art this head of gold.
Dan 2:39 And after thee shall arise another kingdom inferior to thee, and another third kingdom of brass, which shall bear rule over all the earth.
Dan 2:40 And the fourth kingdom shall be strong as iron: forasmuch as iron breaketh in pieces and subdueth all things: and as iron that breaketh all these, shall it break in pieces and bruise.
Dan 2:41 And whereas thou sawest the feet and toes, part of potters' clay, and part of iron, the kingdom shall be divided; but there shall be in it of the strength of the iron, forasmuch as thou sawest the iron mixed with miry clay.
Dan 2:42 And as the toes of the feet were part of iron, and part of clay, so the kingdom shall be partly strong, and partly broken.
Dan 2:43 And whereas thou sawest iron mixed with miry clay, they shall mingle themselves with the seed of men: but they shall not cleave one to another, even as iron is not mixed with clay.
Dan 2:44 And in the days of these kings shall the God of heaven set up a kingdom, which shall never be destroyed: and the kingdom shall not be left to other people, but it shall break in pieces and consume all these kingdoms, and it shall stand for ever.
Dan 2:45 Forasmuch as thou sawest that the stone was cut out of the mountain without hands, and that it brake in pieces the iron, the brass, the clay, the silver, and the gold; the great God hath made known to the king what shall come to pass hereafter: and the dream is certain, and the interpretation thereof sure.

There are also many other prophecies which give very specific details about that succession of world-ruling empires/kingdoms -as well as the other nations.

If you are willing to thoroughly research the subject -with an open mind -and not assume things about what you have not thoroughly researched -you WILL find that it is a huge piece -yet only one piece -of the credibility puzzle -and one that physical science -and all other sciences -will support or at least not contradict.

As for physical proof of the creative activities of the God described in the bible, it is likely that you will meet him before man ever reaches the point of understanding that everything is that proof -even everything that can be known about evolution. The bible does not contradict what is known about evolution in any way (and actually does not truly address the subject -we know that evolution exists and creation exists -and we don't yet know everything about either) -and evidence of a being who acts through everything would be rather difficult to pin down. No sense in worrying about it at this point -much sense in acting as correctly as possible and doing good regardless of what scientific facts we know now.
Meeting him will also be a huge piece of the credibility puzzle (consider that a claim if you must). I understand that it may seem as unlikely as meeting Zeus at this point -but at that point it certainly would not. ;)
 
Last edited:

viole

Ontological Naturalist
Premium Member
"
Isa 46:9 I am God, and there is none like me,

Well, there is none (else) like me either, so?

Incidentally, if there is none like Him, then, if He is, He is not like Him. Which would vaporized God in a cloud of logical contradictions.

As usual, whoever wrote the Bible did not pay attention to logic. But what should we expect from some ancient goat herders? :)

Ciao

- viole
 
Top