Scientific evidence / arguments for God

[PolyHedral]

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.

It assumes that time progresses from cause to effect. Depending on how certain tests involving space warping come out, that could turn out to be complete nonsense.

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.

Nope. According to the naive BBT, the was a first point in time. There was no preceding point for there to be no STEM in.

This is, of course, if you don't subscribe to a BBT variant that doesn't have a first moment of time at all.

 

[FunctionalAtheist]

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.

That is simply incorrect. The theory states that at one time, this universe was a singularity, not non-existent.

 

[dgirl1986]

If you want more of a sciency reasoning for belief in god then you might like to read a book called the god factor. In it 40 scientists and academics explain the reason behind their belief.

 

[Twilight Hue]

We have other ways of getting to the truth.

I cannot see how. Science is the best methodology that can be employed. If there is nothing that can be tested and verified, then nothing can be further accomplished that will reach a consensus of which science, not religion can establish truths objectively.

Theism is strictly testimonial, and nothing more can be done beyond what is relayed word of mouth.

 

[Call_of_the_Wild]

It assumes that time progresses from cause to effect. Depending on how certain tests involving space warping come out, that could turn out to be complete nonsense.

Ummm, No it doesn't Poly. In fact, the whole argument is based upon God being a TIMELESS cause. How can time progress from anywhere if the cause was timeless?

Nope. According to the naive BBT, the was a first point in time. There was no preceding point for there to be no STEM in.

Right, there was a first point in time. If there were no preceding points in time leading up to the FIRST point in time, then obviously the cause of the first point could NOT itself be in TIME.

This is, of course, if you don't subscribe to a BBT variant that doesn't have a first moment of time at all.

Well, either you have to believe in a timeless personal cause that is eternal, or you have to believe in an eternal universe that traversed through eternal past. Those are the only two options and either way you have to believe in some kind of "eternal" concept. The problem is, if you believe that the universe is eternal in time, you open yourself up to a lot of philosophical problems with eternal time and infinite duration. These kind of problems are not something you can just shrug off, so either you have to abandon them due to their absurdities, or you continue to believe in their absurdities.

 

[Call_of_the_Wild]

I cannot see how. Science is the best methodology that can be employed. If there is nothing that can be tested and verified, then nothing can be further accomplished that will reach a consensus of which science, not religion can establish truths objectively.

Theism is strictly testimonial, and nothing more can be done beyond what is relayed word of mouth.

You didn't address my points. How can you scientifically prove that there is nothing outside of the natural realm? The notion that "we can only believe things that can be scientifically proven".......that statement itself cannot be scientifically proven...how can you scientifically prove that we should only believe things that can be scientifically proven. Very self defeating. Second, science is not the only method of finding truth value. We can logically prove things, and mathematically prove things. Science is only one tool.

 

[Call_of_the_Wild]

That is simply incorrect. The theory states that at one time, this universe was a singularity, not non-existent.

But the theory is not stating that the singularity was just sitting there for eternity and waiting to expand. Think about it, even if it was a singularity, it would have to occupy space. But there was no space for it to occupy, because space is EXACTLY what expanded.

 

[FunctionalAtheist]

But the theory is not stating that the singularity was just sitting there for eternity and waiting to expand. Think about it, even if it was a singularity, it would have to occupy space. But there was no space for it to occupy, because space is EXACTLY what expanded.

The theory does not state that the singularity was just sitting there for eternity and waiting. That is correct. The singularity would have to occupy space. That is incorrect.

Time and space comprise the 4 directly observable physical dimensions of this universe. I'm not a physicist, I'm an evolutionary biologist. Even if I were a physicist it would not be a question of my thinking about it. It is an extremely complex model of reality and in order for my thinking about it (or yours) to truly be valid, years of study and research would be required to give us the competency. But my understanding is that the laws of physics were not set until a few billions of a second after expansion began. Prior to expansion, there was no such thing as time or space. At least not for this particular universe. A singularity by definition has infinite density and zero volume. As such no space was required.

 

[idav]

Well, either you have to believe in a timeless personal cause that is eternal, or you have to believe in an eternal universe that traversed through eternal past. Those are the only two options and either way you have to believe in some kind of "eternal" concept. The problem is, if you believe that the universe is eternal in time, you open yourself up to a lot of philosophical problems with eternal time and infinite duration. These kind of problems are not something you can just shrug off, so either you have to abandon them due to their absurdities, or you continue to believe in their absurdities.

The problem is that is an issue for anything you want to deem eternal. Any creation/existence concept is not exempt from this issue. Your doing just that, just shrugging it off by labeling it God.

 

[PolyHedral]

Ummm, No it doesn't Poly. In fact, the whole argument is based upon God being a TIMELESS cause. How can time progress from anywhere if the cause was timeless?

The argument is based on the universe requiring a cause. If time is not linear, that's not true. Ergo, the whole argument falls apart.

Right, there was a first point in time. If there were no preceding points in time leading up to the FIRST point in time, then obviously the cause of the first point could NOT itself be in TIME.

Since there is no preceding point in time, there is no cause at all. "Causation" requires time.

Well, either you have to believe in a timeless personal cause that is eternal, or you have to believe in an eternal universe that traversed through eternal past. Those are the only two options

Or you can believe in circular time, time not being fundamental at all*, or even more than one dimension of time. (There's no actual physics that dictates that only one dimension of exists.)

*This is the most probable idea coming out of physics research.

The problem is, if you believe that the universe is eternal in time, you open yourself up to a lot of philosophical problems with eternal time and infinite duration.

Philosophy takes a back seat to mathematics and experiment, I'm afraid.

 

[outhouse]

Ummm, No it doesn't Poly. In fact, the whole argument is based upon God being a TIMELESS cause. How can time progress from anywhere if the cause was timeless?



Right, there was a first point in time. If there were no preceding points in time leading up to the FIRST point in time, then obviously the cause of the first point could NOT itself be in TIME.



Well, either you have to believe in a timeless personal cause that is eternal, or you have to believe in an eternal universe that traversed through eternal past. Those are the only two options and either way you have to believe in some kind of "eternal" concept. The problem is, if you believe that the universe is eternal in time, you open yourself up to a lot of philosophical problems with eternal time and infinite duration. These kind of problems are not something you can just shrug off, so either you have to abandon them due to their absurdities, or you continue to believe in their absurdities.

God isnt timeless because he didnt exist as written until after 622BC


Here are the facts about the abrahamic deities that turned into a deity

Yahweh was worshipped long before Israelites existed in others mythology.

El was worshipped a long time before Yahweh existed by Mesopotamians who in turn influenced Canaanites.

when Israelites formed from displaced Canaanites after 1200 BC they inherited the deities of their fathers and culture before them. At this time many of the major civilizations had collapsed, and many different semetic communities and people from all over the levant had migrated to the highlands of Israel slowly! The majority were Canaanites though, and not escaped Egyptian slaves as written.

Israelites started worshipping a family of gods, El the father and Yahweh and Baaal the sons. Asherah was Els wife/consort. There were other deities but these 4 were the primary deities. The evolution of these deities was wide and varied. El was the "father" deity and yahweh a warrior deity. In times of war people rallied around yahweh. In times of peace El and Asherah and Baal became more popular.

there were different people loyal to different deities at differnt times. Around 800BC we see yahweh take on all Els traits as the father and Asherah as yahwehs wife. But this was only worshipped by some tribes in some geographic locations. deity worship was dynamic to say the least. At some points we had Yahweh worshipped in the south and El in the north as primary.

It wasnt unti King Josiah around 622 BC who was a strict yahwist reformed the culture to monoheism, which still took hundreds of years to impliment within the religion, none the less, monotheism was born.

yahweh was the new national deity, and books were written and redacted around this new movement within judaism.

Yahweh had taken on all Els traits permanantly and some of Baals as well, Baal and Asherah redacted out of all scripture as primary deities but here traces can still be found. After the fall of the temple in the babylonian exile, all scripture took on more Mesopotamian influences burying the Cananites history and and new Egyptian herritage forged.


the abrahamic deity should not ever be called such because, as a man abraham never existed. And the deity never was abrahamic, it was Canaanite.


This is the real history of Israelites and the OT and the formation and compilation of the deities into a deity.

 

[Call_of_the_Wild]

God isnt timeless because he didnt exist as written until after 622BC

Well, the book of Exodus was written about 1440 BC, so I dont know where you got that from.

Here are the facts about the abrahamic deities that turned into a deity

Yahweh was worshipped long before Israelites existed in others mythology.

El was worshipped a long time before Yahweh existed by Mesopotamians who in turn influenced Canaanites.

when Israelites formed from displaced Canaanites after 1200 BC they inherited the deities of their fathers and culture before them. At this time many of the major civilizations had collapsed, and many different semetic communities and people from all over the levant had migrated to the highlands of Israel slowly! The majority were Canaanites though, and not escaped Egyptian slaves as written.

Israelites started worshipping a family of gods, El the father and Yahweh and Baaal the sons. Asherah was Els wife/consort. There were other deities but these 4 were the primary deities. The evolution of these deities was wide and varied. El was the "father" deity and yahweh a warrior deity. In times of war people rallied around yahweh. In times of peace El and Asherah and Baal became more popular.

there were different people loyal to different deities at differnt times. Around 800BC we see yahweh take on all Els traits as the father and Asherah as yahwehs wife. But this was only worshipped by some tribes in some geographic locations. deity worship was dynamic to say the least. At some points we had Yahweh worshipped in the south and El in the north as primary.

It wasnt unti King Josiah around 622 BC who was a strict yahwist reformed the culture to monoheism, which still took hundreds of years to impliment within the religion, none the less, monotheism was born.

yahweh was the new national deity, and books were written and redacted around this new movement within judaism.

Yahweh had taken on all Els traits permanantly and some of Baals as well, Baal and Asherah redacted out of all scripture as primary deities but here traces can still be found. After the fall of the temple in the babylonian exile, all scripture took on more Mesopotamian influences burying the Cananites history and and new Egyptian herritage forged.


the abrahamic deity should not ever be called such because, as a man abraham never existed. And the deity never was abrahamic, it was Canaanite.


This is the real history of Israelites and the OT and the formation and compilation of the deities into a deity.

 

[Call_of_the_Wild]

The singularity would have to occupy space. That is incorrect.

Well, which one is it? If the singularity existed, either it was "sitting" there since eternal past and then expanded for whatever reason (a reason for which there is no logical sense...because there was nothing outside it to make it expand or nothing within it to make it expand)...or there was a point at which not even the singularity existed, and its existence was a space-time continuum that expanded at an instant from a point of non-existence. I prefer the latter, as it seems to make more logical sense because, if there was matter with no space, where would you put it? And if there was matter with no time, when would you put it??

I'm not a physicist, I'm an evolutionary biologist. Even if I were a physicist it would not be a question of my thinking about it. It is an extremely complex model of reality and in order for my thinking about it (or yours) to truly be valid, years of study and research would be required to give us the competency. But my understanding is that the laws of physics were not set until a few billions of a second after expansion began. Prior to expansion, there was no such thing as time or space. At least not for this particular universe. A singularity by definition has infinite density and zero volume. As such no space was required.

Then there is a problem. First off, the "laws of physics", due to its degree of precision, had to be fine tuned from the very moment of the big bang, as you seem to agree with. In my opinion, there is no way you can get this kind of precision from anything other than a mind. Now I agree, there was no such thing as time and space before the expansion, no arguments here. The problem is, I am "man" enough to admit that for time and space to have a beginning, its originator had to transcend both time and space. That is the problem, you admitted that there was no such thing as time and space...well, what can give rise to both time and space? Well, the only word in the dictionary that is defined as having the exact qualities needed to fit the bill is God. No way around it, and if there is, I would love to hear it.

 

[Call_of_the_Wild]

The problem is that is an issue for anything you want to deem eternal. Any creation/existence concept is not exempt from this issue. Your doing just that, just shrugging it off by labeling it God.

But when we label God as "eternal", we dont use the word "eternal" in the context of "duration through time". God did not traverse through eternal past, rather, he TRANSCENDED time itself. So the word is not used in a temporal context. The argument is, that God created time at the moment of the big bang, and he "stepped" in to time, but prior to that, time simply did not exist. Keep in mind that this reasoning is absolutely NECESSARY due to the impossibility of an actual infinite. So this isn't special pleading, this is drawing the logical conclusion based on two alternate ideas.

 

[Call_of_the_Wild]

The argument is based on the universe requiring a cause. If time is not linear, that's not true. Ergo, the whole argument falls apart.

The argument holds true regardless of what your concept of time is. Infinite duration cannot exist in any reality.

Since there is no preceding point in time, there is no cause at all. "Causation" requires time.

So, the singularity was sitting there, no space, no time, no anything, for all eternity. Then, 13.7 billion years ago, it expanded, for no reason at all. Gotcha.

Or you can believe in circular time, time not being fundamental at all*, or even more than one dimension of time. (There's no actual physics that dictates that only one dimension of exists.)

Regardless of whether you render time to circular or linear, the rule of thumb applies.

*This is the most probable idea coming out of physics research.

Philosophy takes a back seat to mathematics and experiment, I'm afraid.

To use philosophy is to use reason and logic...I would hope that is what a scientist does when he is in the laboratory. If we are throwing reason and logic out of the window....

 

[PolyHedral]

The argument holds true regardless of what your concept of time is. Infinite duration cannot exist in any reality.

Mathematics disagrees. There is nothing contradictory about any sort of infinite time.

So, the singularity was sitting there, no space...

If the singularity is there, so is space.

Regardless of whether you render time to circular or linear, the rule of thumb applies.

The rule of thumb only applies to linear time.

To use philosophy is to use reason and logic...I would hope that is what a scientist does when he is in the laboratory. If we are throwing reason and logic out of the window....

To do philosophy is to use natural language and intuitive reasoning, as you are doing.
To do mathematics is to use a formal, nigh-infallible logic that God Himself could hardly disagree with. A result derived through mathematics can be wrong if and only if the premises it is built on are wrong. It doesn't matter how much the philosophers proclaim that time proceeds in a linear fashion from cause to effect if reality and mathematics do not support them - they are still wrong.

 

[4consideration]

If the singularity is there, so is space.

If the singularity is like a point, wouldn't you need a second point before you would have dimension? Don't you need dimension before you have space?

(If you wouldn't mind putting it in English, perferably a nice metaphor, since I probably wouldn't understand a highly technical explanation, I would appreciate it. )

 

[PolyHedral]

If the singularity is like a point, wouldn't you need a second point before you would have dimension? Don't you need dimension before you have space?

(If you wouldn't mind putting it in English, perferably a nice metaphor, since I probably wouldn't understand a highly technical explanation, I would appreciate it. )

The second point is the slightly bigger space next-wards. Remember, this is spacetime we're talking about.

 

[LuisDantas]

While I have no particular desire to make anyone believe in God, that is what the OP does and I happen to believe that there are some good arguments that are rarely presented.

Foremost of them, that reason is at all possible. If there is a single miraculous act in all of existence, it is probably the existence of the capability for abstract thought. Human beings can learn music, mathematics, languages and use them to such an extent... that is far more than anyone could really hope for.

 

[outhouse]

Well, the book of Exodus was written about 1440 BC, so I dont know where you got that from.

bud, could you supply some source for that information?

we know that the earliest parts of the OT were written around 900-1000 BC at the earliest. None of these early workd exist but are the fragmented part of the first five books written.


It is also factual that Israelites formed from displaced Canaanites that settled the highlands after 1200 BC, before 1200BC Israelites factually didnt exist.

The Merneptah stele shows a nomadic, semi-nomadic people, not place, existed around 1209 BC and were wiped out, seed left bare. These people are known as proto-Israelites.