Scientific evidence / arguments for God

[tumbleweed41]

What interactions?

Atomic collisions, for example, create heat and energy.

 

[1137]

Atomic collisions, for example, create heat and energy.

So atoms don't need available energy to move and collide?

 

[idav]

So atoms don't need available energy to move and collide?

In a sense matter is energy except the energy of matter is inverted into gravity based on the mass values. In other words everything coming from the big bang has a built in energy that goes forever even in heat death.

As I understand it energy doesn't just die at heat death it just becomes uniform. Heat death scenarios are still being theorized.

 

[1137]

I think it can be explained simply by cooling. As the universe cooled down after the big bang, hydrogen atoms came into being and, eventually, stars. The prior conditions in the room with coffee played out in such a way where the coffee was still hotter than the air at the start of the analogy.

 

[idav]

How can energy just go away if it is zero sum to begin with?

 

[1137]

How can energy just go away if it is zero sum to begin with?

Energy doesn't go away, it becomes uniform AFAIK.

 

[1137]

I think it can be explained simply by cooling. As the universe cooled down after the big bang, hydrogen atoms came into being and, eventually, stars. The prior conditions in the room with coffee played out in such a way where the coffee was still hotter than the air at the start of the analogy.

This is not a satisfactory explanation.

 

[tumbleweed41]

Energy doesn't go away, it becomes uniform AFAIK.

Uniform?

 

[Falvlun]

It's nonsensical to ask for empirical evidence for the gods, because the concept of gods rests on a foundation that is not scientific.

While this may be true of some god concepts, it is not true of all. Some god concepts, particularly the literal ones like the Abrahamic God, Zeus, Thor, etc, very much should produce empirical evidence. The concept is literal, and therefore, scientific.

I can point to the universe as evidence for my gods, but in order for someone to accept that as evidence, they have to first accept a certain definition of the gods. That definition is beyond proof. You either believe it or you don't. Science cannot help us with these things.

Can you elaborate on this particular example? Because, on the surface, I don't think it's a very good one.

The universe's existence is not evidence of the existence of any gods unless you can show that the universe wouldn't be able to exist without the existence of those gods. This question is inherently a scientific one.

But perhaps you mean that you define the universe as god. But this really isn't evidence of the existence of god. It is merely evidence that the universe exists and some people consider that to be god. It's semantics; not evidence.

 

[Quintessence]

But perhaps you mean that you define the universe as god. But this really isn't evidence of the existence of god. It is merely evidence that the universe exists and some people consider that to be god. It's semantics; not evidence.

Exactly. All of it boils down to semantics and how you define the gods. You either accept a particular definition or you don't. At the root of it, a deity is simply something some particular human being finds sacred/holy/magical and therefore worthy of paying honor and reverence to. It's not that different from someone visiting an art gallery and saying "I like that painting." You can't offer evidence for liking the painting, you just do. The painting exists, you enjoy it, and you decide to call it beautiful and buy it to decorate your house with. If you accept a particular definition of beauty - or of the gods - then your experiences of the world serve as evidence. But yes, it boils down to semantics. As does pretty much all of human experience. Doors just needs to sort out what he regards as sacred and worth honoring. Nobody can do that for him, and I couldn't care less if he calls it "god." Everyone has something that serves this role in their life, no matter what they call it.

 

[PolyHedral]

What interactions?

Gravity and electrostatic interactions are the main ones. They mean that, although the energy distribution starts out uniformly distributed, the slightest disturbance multiples into a distinctly non-uniform layout.

Atomic collisions, for example, create heat and energy.

Atomic collisions distribute energy. Energy is conserved in all interactions - it is never created or destroyed, only moved around.

 

[George-ananda]

Well since my humble post a couple of pages back, things I've heard discussed are the first two laws of thermodynamics, temperature of the universe, atomic collisions, creating heat and energy, matter is energy, hydrogen atoms, zero sum, big bangs, stars, .......

Seems like there's no hope of any headway with the OP question that way....

My Point: Science is great but no help in the big questions.

 

[PolyHedral]

Well since my humble post a couple of pages back, things I've heard discussed are the first two laws of thermodynamics, temperature of the universe, atomic collisions, creating heat and energy, matter is energy, hydrogen atoms, zero sum, big bangs, stars, .......

Seems like there's no hope of any headway with the OP question that way....

My Point: Science is great but no help in the big questions.

What big questions would those be?

 

[George-ananda]

What big questions would those be?

The OP request 'arguments for God '

 

[outhouse]

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.

First things first. There is only percieved evidence towards a deities existence.

Scientifically no deity exist because there is nothing at all to test.

we are talking about something percieved in imagination and mythology


If we look at the creation of the abrahamic deity in literature, we find a compilation of deities from previous religions and mythologies, more or less proving, many men created these concepts that other men compiled creating their own concept.

 

[outhouse]

Look at the evidence for = none

evidence against = mythology

 

[Falvlun]

Exactly. All of it boils down to semantics and how you define the gods. You either accept a particular definition or you don't. At the root of it, a deity is simply something some particular human being finds sacred/holy/magical and therefore worthy of paying honor and reverence to. It's not that different from someone visiting an art gallery and saying "I like that painting." You can't offer evidence for liking the painting, you just do. The painting exists, you enjoy it, and you decide to call it beautiful and buy it to decorate your house with. If you accept a particular definition of beauty - or of the gods - then your experiences of the world serve as evidence. But yes, it boils down to semantics. As does pretty much all of human experience. Doors just needs to sort out what he regards as sacred and worth honoring. Nobody can do that for him, and I couldn't care less if he calls it "god." Everyone has something that serves this role in their life, no matter what they call it.

I like how you were able to articulate how many conceptions of gods do not create evidence, and how they are particular to the eye of the beholder. Your equation of gods to concepts like beauty was very illustrative.

My only bone is that, while this subjective nature does pertain to certain god-conepts, it does not encompass all. As mentioned before, some gods are conceived as literal beings that perform literal, actual feats. These gods are not merely something that people find worthy of worship and reverence. They are actual Beings. So, while the decision as to whether they are worthy of honor would remain subjective, the question of their existence would not be.

 

[Call_of_the_Wild]

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.

The kalam cosmological argument CANNOT/WILL NOT be refuted. There is just to much there for atheists to deal with. I haven't seen it sucessfully refuted as of yet, and don't plan to.

 

[Call_of_the_Wild]

Cause/Effect means nothing prior to the existence of Space/Time or Matter/Energy.

Well, according to the big bang theory, there was a "point" at which there was no space/time, energy, or matter (STEM). So to jump from no "STEM", to all of a sudden having all of this "STEM" around, DOES cry out for an explanation, a supernatural explanation at that.

 

[Call_of_the_Wild]

First things first. There is only percieved evidence towards a deities existence.

Scientifically no deity exist because there is nothing at all to test.

The above quote is a naturalistic statement at its best. So according to this logic, we should only believe things that can be scientifically proven, which is self refuting, because you can't even scientifically prove that the natural world is all there is. So how can you even begin to want to "test" for a supernatural reality, when you cant even use naturalism to prove your own theory. The good thing about it is, Christian apologists don't have to use science as a tool to provide evidence for the existence of God. We have other ways of getting to the truth.