Science Proves God

User avatar
Pahu
Posts: 1799
Joined: Thu Mar 11, 2010 12:52 pm

Science Proves God

Post by Pahu »

When we set out to explain why and how something happens, we must use the evidence, facts and experience available to us if we are to arrive at a logical conclusion. Using available evidence, experience, facts, observation and experimentation, we know that the universe had a beginning and that before that beginning there was no universe and therefore there was nothing. We know this because of the Law of Causality (for every cause there is an effect and for every effect there is a cause). Based on this law, we can use the following logic:

1. The universe exists.

2. The universe had a beginning.

3. Before the beginning of the universe, there was no universe.

4. Since there was no universe, there was nothing.

5. Since the universe does exist, it came from nothing.

6. Nothing comes from nothing by any natural cause.

7. Therefore the cause of the universe is supernatural.

8. Life exists.

9. Life always comes from pre-existing life of the same kind (the Law of Biogenesis).

10. Life cannot come from nonliving matter by any natural cause.

11. Since life does exist, the cause of life is supernatural.

Many people with a naturalistic worldview assume everything can be explained by natural causes. From the beginning, they reject the possibility of a supernatural cause. Because of this they are left with no scientifically valid answers to the question of how the universe could come from nothing, which is impossible by any natural cause of which we are aware. Many answers have been proposed that go beyond the realm of known evidence, experience, facts, observation and experimentation and therefore enter the realm of fiction.

The same logic applies to life. Using available evidence, experience, facts, observation and experimentation, we know that life only comes from pre-existing life of the same kind.

“Spontaneous generation (the emergence of life from nonliving matter) has never been observed. All observations have shown that life comes only from life. This has been observed so consistently it is called the Law of Biogenesis. Evolution conflicts with this scientific law by claiming that life came from nonliving matter through natural processes” [From “In the Beginning” by Walt Brown]

Life never comes from non-living matter by any natural cause of which we are aware.

Now that we have seen proof that God exists, using logic based on known evidence, experience, facts, observation and experimentation, we need to see if He has revealed Himself to us. In the Holy Bible there are hundreds of prophecies given by God who is speaking in the first person. In both Bible and secular history we find that those prophecies have been accurately fulfilled. No other writing on earth comes close to doing this! Only God can accurately reveal the future, ergo, He is the author of the Holy Bible. Within the pages of the Holy Bible He reveals His nature, our nature, His relationship to us, our need for salvation and His plan of salvation for us.

The reason the universe and life cannot come from nothing by any natural cause, but can come from a supernatural cause is because God is the self-existent creator of everything and everyone. He is not subject to His creation. He created it and sustains it. It is a mistake to judge God by human standards and human perspectives. God reveals that He is omnipotent, omniscient and omnipresent.

If you are interested in more detailed proof, read, “Evidence that Demands a Verdict” by Josh McDowell.

[ From “Reincarnation in the Bible?” ]
Truth Frees! Evolution is evidence free speculation masquerading as science.
Clodhopper
Posts: 5115
Joined: Mon Feb 25, 2008 5:11 pm

Science Proves God

Post by Clodhopper »

Brave try!

Good to read a Christian here who isn't trying to insist the Bible is literal truth. (I'm an agnostic with Anglican tendencies. Also occasionally atheist. Largely depends on my mood)

we know that the universe had a beginning and that before that beginning there was no universe and therefore there was nothing.


We don't know there was nothing before the Big Bang. That's just been the current state of the theory for some time. I understand that there are theories out there that suggest for example endless universe cycles, and the discovery of dark matter has given everyone in the field headaches.

My point being that you are basing your argument on a theory, not a fact. And that theory is looking a lot shakier than it has in a long time.

Life cannot come from nonliving matter by any natural cause.


Not by any cause that we currently absolutely know of. But we have got pretty close to understanding how chemicals exist now very close to the divide alive/not alive, and we theorise about possible early Earth environments that could have led to the transition. This does not mean it was not God, it just means that your logic is not as clear cut as it might be.

Then you assume that because Science has not provided a reason, the reason must be God. And THAT has not been proven. God is just one of an infinite number of possibilities.
The crowd: "Yes! We are all individuals!"

Lone voice: "I'm not."
User avatar
LarsMac
Posts: 12438
Joined: Fri Nov 27, 2009 9:11 pm
Location: Far Out, Man

Science Proves God

Post by LarsMac »

The Law of Causality is a fabrication.

1. the universe exits.

We know this principally because we are in it. (we think)

None of your following "logical" assertions are true.

Humans assume the universe had a beginning.

If we hold that assumption, then we can follow your logical progression, but logic based upon incorrect assertions will lead to incorrect conclusions.

GIGO
Control is an illusion. The Chaos is all part of the fun.
-Susan Hattie Steinsapir
SnakeDoctor
Posts: 15
Joined: Fri Dec 17, 2010 6:18 pm

Science Proves God

Post by SnakeDoctor »

If there has always been a something, what created that something?
User avatar
LarsMac
Posts: 12438
Joined: Fri Nov 27, 2009 9:11 pm
Location: Far Out, Man

Science Proves God

Post by LarsMac »

It always was.
Control is an illusion. The Chaos is all part of the fun.
-Susan Hattie Steinsapir
SnakeDoctor
Posts: 15
Joined: Fri Dec 17, 2010 6:18 pm

Science Proves God

Post by SnakeDoctor »

LarsMac;1362504 wrote: It always was.


Yes, it always was is God.
User avatar
LarsMac
Posts: 12438
Joined: Fri Nov 27, 2009 9:11 pm
Location: Far Out, Man

Science Proves God

Post by LarsMac »

Precisely. But, flawed logic doesn't help.
Control is an illusion. The Chaos is all part of the fun.
-Susan Hattie Steinsapir
gmc
Posts: 13566
Joined: Sun Aug 29, 2004 9:44 am

Science Proves God

Post by gmc »

Science doesn't prove god exists any more than it can prove he doesn't. All you have is you believe god exists. Why can't you just accept that the existence of god is a truth for you that you choose to believe and stop trying to bully everyone in to sharing your belief.

cogito ergo sum. I think therefore I am. To deduce that god exists and must have made you is a leap of faith. You could still be delusional. Enjoy the delusion it might be the meaning of life.
User avatar
LarsMac
Posts: 12438
Joined: Fri Nov 27, 2009 9:11 pm
Location: Far Out, Man

Science Proves God

Post by LarsMac »

gmc;1362511 wrote: Science doesn't prove god exists any more than it can prove he doesn't. All you have is you believe god exists. Why can't you just accept that the existence of god is a truth for you that you choose to believe and stop trying to bully everyone in to sharing your belief.

cogito ergo sum. I think therefore I am. To deduce that god exists and must have made you is a leap of faith. You could still be delusional. Enjoy the delusion it might be the meaning of life.


Nicely put.
Control is an illusion. The Chaos is all part of the fun.
-Susan Hattie Steinsapir
gmc
Posts: 13566
Joined: Sun Aug 29, 2004 9:44 am

Science Proves God

Post by gmc »

LarsMac;1362517 wrote: Nicely put.


It's not a leap I have ever been able to make. It's a choice you have to make for yourself. To use an analogy - if it's also over a chasm a bigot is someone who is not quite sure they have made the leap and hangs on for dear life terrified in case someone persuades them to let go and wants everybody to jump with them for reassurance. An atheist is satisfied there is no need to make a jump in the first place, doesn't object to others jumping but does when they try and force them to join in. (just made that one up)
User avatar
Pahu
Posts: 1799
Joined: Thu Mar 11, 2010 12:52 pm

Science Proves God

Post by Pahu »

Clodhopper;1362476 wrote: Brave try!

Good to read a Christian here who isn't trying to insist the Bible is literal truth. (I'm an agnostic with Anglican tendencies. Also occasionally atheist. Largely depends on my mood)



We don't know there was nothing before the Big Bang. That's just been the current state of the theory for some time. I understand that there are theories out there that suggest for example endless universe cycles, and the discovery of dark matter has given everyone in the field headaches.

My point being that you are basing your argument on a theory, not a fact. And that theory is looking a lot shakier than it has in a long time.


Is evolution just a theory? Do you believe in it? The universe cannot be infinitely old or all useable energy would have been lost already (entropy). This has not occurred. Therefore, the universe is not infinitely old. Therefore, the universe had a beginning and since the universe is everything that exists, could it exist before it existed? Something cannot bring itself into existence. Therefore, something brought it into existence. What brought the universe into existence? It would have to be greater than the universe and be a sufficient cause to it.

All things that came into existence were caused to exist. You cannot have an infinite regression of causes (otherwise an infinity of time has been crossed which is impossible because an infinity cannot be crossed). Therefore, logically, there must be a single uncaused cause that has always existed.

Then you assume that because Science has not provided a reason, the reason must be God. And THAT has not been proven. God is just one of an infinite number of possibilities.


Do you rule out the possibility of an intelligent Designer being the cause of everything because of scientific evidence that He does not exist? Where is that evidence? The evidence I provided is based on scientific facts, which prove God does exist. You seem to be taking refuge in denial.
Truth Frees! Evolution is evidence free speculation masquerading as science.
User avatar
LarsMac
Posts: 12438
Joined: Fri Nov 27, 2009 9:11 pm
Location: Far Out, Man

Science Proves God

Post by LarsMac »

To what do you think energy would be lost?
Control is an illusion. The Chaos is all part of the fun.
-Susan Hattie Steinsapir
User avatar
LarsMac
Posts: 12438
Joined: Fri Nov 27, 2009 9:11 pm
Location: Far Out, Man

Science Proves God

Post by LarsMac »

And as for evolution, it always seemed to be a pretty intelligent design to me.
Control is an illusion. The Chaos is all part of the fun.
-Susan Hattie Steinsapir
gmc
Posts: 13566
Joined: Sun Aug 29, 2004 9:44 am

Science Proves God

Post by gmc »

posted by pahu

Is evolution just a theory? Do you believe in it?


Unlike a philosphical theory a scientific theory is an explanation of a set of related observations or events based upon proven hypotheses and verified multiple times by detached groups of researchers. Or if you prefer it's the best explanation based on what we know so far as to how we got here. You can refuse to acceptb the evidence but that's uop to you.

Ever been in a plane? How about the theory of flight do you believe in it? How about iron ships - why do they not sink. Generally speaking people accept scientific theories and the evidence for them as being true even if they don't understand the explanation. why the hang up about the theory of evolution?
Clodhopper
Posts: 5115
Joined: Mon Feb 25, 2008 5:11 pm

Science Proves God

Post by Clodhopper »

Nothing I wrote denied the existence of God. When I'm particularly happy or see some something particularly wonderful I often thank God. Even if he doesn't exist.

But your case is built on treating theories as though they are facts. Evolution, whether of Universe or Human, is just a theory. However, Big Bang theory is a theory which explains most of the facts as we understand them. Our technology is based on the science which is based on that theory, and that technology works, which suggests that a great deal about the theory underpinning that technology is correct.

So Yes, I generally believe the theory of evolution.

The only thing I am denying is the logic of your case. You state repeatedly that you base your case on facts when you don't, you base them on theories and assertions.

The temperature at the core of the Sun is about 15,000,000 Celsius. That's a fact.

The REASON it is that temperature goes back to the Big Bang theory, the nature of gravity and a number of things we don't understand like dark matter. The reason is a theory, it is an incomplete explanation of and for a number of facts. A good theory explains most of the facts, an excellent one explains all of them and becomes accepted as fact. The theory of Evolution and Big Bang theory are good theories, but not excellent, and you treat them as though they are excellent.

Aaanyway, none of this proves or disproves God. He either exists as an external reality or He doesn't. And if he does exist, given the state of his Creation, I've got issues.
The crowd: "Yes! We are all individuals!"

Lone voice: "I'm not."
User avatar
Pahu
Posts: 1799
Joined: Thu Mar 11, 2010 12:52 pm

Science Proves God

Post by Pahu »

gmc;1362539 wrote: posted by pahu



Unlike a philosphical theory a scientific theory is an explanation of a set of related observations or events based upon proven hypotheses and verified multiple times by detached groups of researchers. Or if you prefer it's the best explanation based on what we know so far as to how we got here. You can refuse to acceptb the evidence but that's uop to you.

Ever been in a plane? How about the theory of flight do you believe in it? How about iron ships - why do they not sink. Generally speaking people accept scientific theories and the evidence for them as being true even if they don't understand the explanation. why the hang up about the theory of evolution?


You are right about scientific hypotheses, theories, and laws. My question is where are there any facts supporting evolution?
Truth Frees! Evolution is evidence free speculation masquerading as science.
User avatar
LarsMac
Posts: 12438
Joined: Fri Nov 27, 2009 9:11 pm
Location: Far Out, Man

Science Proves God

Post by LarsMac »

"evolution" is an observed phenomenon.

The Darwinian theory is the principle theory attempting to explain why and/or how it happens.
Control is an illusion. The Chaos is all part of the fun.
-Susan Hattie Steinsapir
User avatar
Pahu
Posts: 1799
Joined: Thu Mar 11, 2010 12:52 pm

Science Proves God

Post by Pahu »

LarsMac;1362568 wrote: "evolution" is an observed phenomenon.

The Darwinian theory is the principle theory attempting to explain why and/or how it happens.


When has evolution been observed?
Truth Frees! Evolution is evidence free speculation masquerading as science.
Ahso!
Posts: 10215
Joined: Wed Nov 11, 2009 1:38 pm

Science Proves God

Post by Ahso! »

Pahu;1362578 wrote: When has evolution been observed?You've been witnessing it every second of every day, you've been evolving from the time you were conceived. Look at your own formation, you could have been considered another species to the naked ignorant eye - you were once a zygote.

If you were to observe the very first stages of life forming inside the womb, you would not be able to identify a difference in species. Then as time advances each one evolves into the species identified through DNA.

As I've told you before, you don't have an argument with evolution, your problem is with Speciation in particular.
“Those who can make you believe absurdities can make you commit atrocities,”

Voltaire



I have only one thing to do and that's

Be the wave that I am and then

Sink back into the ocean

Fiona Apple
User avatar
Pahu
Posts: 1799
Joined: Thu Mar 11, 2010 12:52 pm

Science Proves God

Post by Pahu »

Ahso!;1362579 wrote: You've been witnessing it [evolution] every second of every day, you've been evolving from the time you were conceived. Look at your own formation, you could have been considered another species to the naked ignorant eye - you were once a zygote.

If you were to observe the very first stages of life forming inside the womb, you would not be able to identify a difference in species. Then as time advances each one evolves into the species identified through DNA.

As I've told you before, you don't have an argument with evolution, your problem is with Speciation in particular.


If evolution is the growth of a species from conception, then of course I agree with you that evolution is true. I started out a human and I am still a human.

I always thought that evolution is the process by which different kinds of living organisms are thought to have developed and diversified from earlier forms during the history of the earth.
Truth Frees! Evolution is evidence free speculation masquerading as science.
Ahso!
Posts: 10215
Joined: Wed Nov 11, 2009 1:38 pm

Science Proves God

Post by Ahso! »

Pahu;1362582 wrote: If evolution is the growth of a species from conception, then of course I agree with you that evolution is true. I started out a human and I am still a human.

I always thought that evolution is the process by which different kinds of living organisms are thought to have developed and diversified from earlier forms during the history of the earth.So let's say that two parents, both with blue eyes procreate and the child is born with brown eyes - how do you explain such a phenomenon?
“Those who can make you believe absurdities can make you commit atrocities,”

Voltaire



I have only one thing to do and that's

Be the wave that I am and then

Sink back into the ocean

Fiona Apple
User avatar
LarsMac
Posts: 12438
Joined: Fri Nov 27, 2009 9:11 pm
Location: Far Out, Man

Science Proves God

Post by LarsMac »

Pahu;1362578 wrote: When has evolution been observed?


You can start with Lamark, if you like.
Control is an illusion. The Chaos is all part of the fun.
-Susan Hattie Steinsapir
User avatar
Pahu
Posts: 1799
Joined: Thu Mar 11, 2010 12:52 pm

Science Proves God

Post by Pahu »

Ahso!;1362583 wrote: So let's say that two parents, both with blue eyes procreate and the child is born with brown eyes - how do you explain such a phenomenon?


Genetics. You will find details in Google.
Truth Frees! Evolution is evidence free speculation masquerading as science.
Ahso!
Posts: 10215
Joined: Wed Nov 11, 2009 1:38 pm

Science Proves God

Post by Ahso! »

Pahu;1362586 wrote: Genetics. You will find details in Google.But neither one of the parents had brown eyes, so how can that be genetics?

The question is: why didn't the DNA copy exactly as it should have?
“Those who can make you believe absurdities can make you commit atrocities,”

Voltaire



I have only one thing to do and that's

Be the wave that I am and then

Sink back into the ocean

Fiona Apple
Ahso!
Posts: 10215
Joined: Wed Nov 11, 2009 1:38 pm

Science Proves God

Post by Ahso! »

Let's try a little more extreme example. Two people procreate and both have two hands with five fingers on each hand but their offspring is born with six fingers on one hand. How do you explain that?

Or, what about people who are born with both sex organs? Please explain why the genes did not physically express only one gender.
“Those who can make you believe absurdities can make you commit atrocities,”

Voltaire



I have only one thing to do and that's

Be the wave that I am and then

Sink back into the ocean

Fiona Apple
gmc
Posts: 13566
Joined: Sun Aug 29, 2004 9:44 am

Science Proves God

Post by gmc »

Pahu;1362578 wrote: When has evolution been observed?


It was observation that led to the theory trying to explain what was happening in the first place. There are several examples but this is one fairly recent one.

Peppered moth evolution - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Darwin's 'evolution' moth changes back from black to white thanks to soot-free skies | Mail Online

More recently, the story of the peppered moth has also become a battleground for creationists who claim the whole event is based on flawed data.

Sightings of the species have declined by 60 per cent over the last 40 years, but if the dark form has suffered more it is likely to be seized on by supporters of Darwin to support his theory.


There will always be those who just don't want to think for themselves and won't even consider the possibility. Other come up with the notion that yes evolution is demonstrably true but that's how god does what he does and there is still a creator, justt because we have worked out the mechanism does not mean god does not exist. Intelligent design I think they call it.

The thing about a scientific theory is that if new data comes along that challenges the accepted theory the theory can and will change if the new data stands up to scrutiny. It's not like a religious belief where faith requires unquestioning acceptance of what you are told and anything else is heresy. If you want to believe in god go right ahead no one will try and stop you, they might challenge what you believe you but there is yet to be one scientist burning another alive (or indeed of the member of any religious oprganisation) in order to bring them back to the one true theory.

No one can prove god doesn't exist. But then it's impossible to prove something doesn't exist you can only prive what does. It's up to those who believe to prove it and demanding a leap of faith just doesn't hack it.

Astronomers postulate the existence of planets in other stars by observing orbital anomolies - the effect their existence has on thiongs around. them. you could apply I supopose the same logic to prove the existence of god. A child survives an earthquake and it's a miracle while the thousands that die is god moving in a mysterious way. Take your pick what you want to believe as proof god exists but you have to be remarkably selective about what you choose to take as evidence a) that he exists and B) That he is actually a caring god. Maybe that's why so many cleave to the viscious capricious god of the old testament rather than the caring god of the new testament, in reality the world is more like one shaped by an uncaring bastard as his plaything than one shaped by a god that cares.

Science doesn't prove the issue either way, personally I don't think there is a god but nion belief is nit an alternative religion I don't have a whole set of other beliefs that constutute a religion and neither does any atheist, they just don't believe in god. Trouble is many religious people see anyone that does not believe as they do as necessarily being in opposition and conflict with them - which says a great deal about them.
User avatar
Pahu
Posts: 1799
Joined: Thu Mar 11, 2010 12:52 pm

Science Proves God

Post by Pahu »

Ahso!;1362587 wrote: But neither one of the parents had brown eyes, so how can that be genetics?

The question is: why didn't the DNA copy exactly as it should have?


If you will Google eye colors you will find the answer. I looked that up several weeks ago and was surprised to learn that there are times when two parents with blue eyes can have a brown eyed child. It has something to do with recessive genes. It is rare, but it does happen.
Truth Frees! Evolution is evidence free speculation masquerading as science.
Ahso!
Posts: 10215
Joined: Wed Nov 11, 2009 1:38 pm

Science Proves God

Post by Ahso! »

Pahu;1362631 wrote: If you will Google eye colors you will find the answer. I looked that up several weeks ago and was surprised to learn that there are times when two parents with blue eyes can have a brown eyed child. It has something to do with recessive genes. It is rare, but it does happen.You see then that DNA doesn't always copy exactly as it should?
“Those who can make you believe absurdities can make you commit atrocities,”

Voltaire



I have only one thing to do and that's

Be the wave that I am and then

Sink back into the ocean

Fiona Apple
User avatar
LarsMac
Posts: 12438
Joined: Fri Nov 27, 2009 9:11 pm
Location: Far Out, Man

Science Proves God

Post by LarsMac »

Pahu;1362631 wrote: If you will Google eye colors you will find the answer. I looked that up several weeks ago and was surprised to learn that there are times when two parents with blue eyes can have a brown eyed child. It has something to do with recessive genes. It is rare, but it does happen.


It's really not that rare, Mate.
Control is an illusion. The Chaos is all part of the fun.
-Susan Hattie Steinsapir
User avatar
Infinite light
Posts: 30
Joined: Wed Nov 02, 2011 12:59 pm

Science Proves God

Post by Infinite light »

Pahu;1362404 wrote: ...Using available evidence, experience, facts, observation and experimentation, we know that the universe had a beginning and that before that beginning there was no universe and therefore there was nothing. We know this because of the Law of Causality (for every cause there is an effect and for every effect there is a cause)


But how do you know there was nothing before the present universe? and how do you know it had a beginning?

You say that all evidence, experimentation, etc. tells us that the universe had a beginning and that there was nothing before that beginning. But you fail to provide any convincing evidence or experimentation. You follow that with the law of causality. In other words, because everything has a cause, then the universe too must have a cause, and so a "beginning." That must be the evidence of which you speak.

But for me, the law of causality does not imply a need for a universal, sentient creator-being as first cause. On the contrary, the law of causality suggests that within the very fabric of the physical universe lay its own means of eternal sustenance. What you are proposing from the law of causality is the very opposite of what that law suggests to me. We live in a universe where things happen for a reason; cause and effect we call it. As our species matures, we give up our fanciful causes for things: Thunder, lightning, volcanoes, etc, are not caused by the gods, but by natural phenomena. So the evidence seems to suggest that cause of the universe is of a natural origin, and not, let's say, a giant boogyman with stupendous powers.

Like a circle, the universe may have no beginning or end. But apparently you reject that possibility. You want to solve the miracle of the origin of the universe by proposing another inexplicable miracle: God. I don't understand why you think that's a solution to the problem of the origin of the universe. At any rate, without a beginning, your eleven-line argument falls apart, for it is a premise it cannot live without.
User avatar
Pahu
Posts: 1799
Joined: Thu Mar 11, 2010 12:52 pm

Science Proves God

Post by Pahu »

Infinite light;1374337 wrote:

But how do you know there was nothing before the present universe? and how do you know it had a beginning?

You say that all evidence, experimentation, etc. tells us that the universe had a beginning and that there was nothing before that beginning. But you fail to provide any convincing evidence or experimentation. You follow that with the law of causality. In other words, because everything has a cause, then the universe too must have a cause, and so a "beginning." That must be the evidence of which you speak.

But for me, the law of causality does not imply a need for a universal, sentient creator-being as first cause. On the contrary, the law of causality suggests that within the very fabric of the physical universe lay its own means of eternal sustenance. What you are proposing from the law of causality is the very opposite of what that law suggests to me. We live in a universe where things happen for a reason; cause and effect we call it. As our species matures, we give up our fanciful causes for things: Thunder, lightning, volcanoes, etc, are not caused by the gods, but by natural phenomena. So the evidence seems to suggest that cause of the universe is of a natural origin, and not, let's say, a giant boogyman with stupendous powers.

Like a circle, the universe may have no beginning or end. But apparently you reject that possibility. You want to solve the miracle of the origin of the universe by proposing another inexplicable miracle: God. I don't understand why you think that's a solution to the problem of the origin of the universe. At any rate, without a beginning, your eleven-line argument falls apart, for it is a premise it cannot live without.


If the universe had no beginning, it has always existed. This is not scientifically sound. The universe cannot be infinitely old or all useable energy would have been lost already (entropy). This has not occurred. Therefore, the universe is not infinitely old. Therefore, the universe had a beginning and since the universe is everything that exists, could it exist before it existed? Something cannot bring itself into existence. Therefore, something brought it into existence. What brought the universe into existence? It would have to be greater than the universe and be a sufficient cause to it. These facts are supported by known laws of physics.
Truth Frees! Evolution is evidence free speculation masquerading as science.
User avatar
littleCJelkton
Posts: 1215
Joined: Tue Jun 01, 2010 5:57 pm

Science Proves God

Post by littleCJelkton »

Pahu;1374370 wrote: Something cannot bring itself into existence. So if God brought the universe into existence who,what brought God into existence?

You are trying to use the science to prove that science is wrong because science for the time being excludes the universe from the "you can't get something from nothing rule" , by substituting it with God excludes the scientific "you can't get something out of nothing rule".

Though with science even though for now the universe is excluded we still can question, hypothosize, theorize, and experiment why it is excluded from this rule or prove that it is not excluded from this rule.

With religion you are bound to faith an belief that God came from nothing and not question why, or how.

I find if you can't question if why or how then it doesn't really matter if it is or is not.
User avatar
Infinite light
Posts: 30
Joined: Wed Nov 02, 2011 12:59 pm

Science Proves God

Post by Infinite light »

Pahu;1374370 wrote: If the universe had no beginning, it has always existed. This is not scientifically sound. The universe cannot be infinitely old or all useable energy would have been lost already (entropy). This has not occurred. Therefore, the universe is not infinitely old. Therefore, the universe had a beginning and since the universe is everything that exists, could it exist before it existed? Something cannot bring itself into existence. Therefore, something brought it into existence. What brought the universe into existence? It would have to be greater than the universe and be a sufficient cause to it. These facts are supported by known laws of physics.


I'm sorry but I don't understand what you have there. First, if the unvierse is eternal, it could not be described as infinitely "old," as you state. One might say that the universe is infinitely "evolving," or perhaps infinitely "transforming," but not infinitely old. That's like saying the end of the circle is older than the beginning; which is silly, because a complete circle doesn't have a beginning or end, unless of course we arbitrarily assign them.

But even if you are correct, that the universe could not have created itself, is not eternal, and must have had a beginning, you still haven't proven God because it is an argument from ignorance. I don't care if there's a consensus among the world's greatest scientists, God still has not been proven. It's like being confronted with an inexplicable noise from within the closet, and from that, conclude that Ghosts have been proven. Not at all. Again, argument from ignorance. It could simply be something with a natural cause unknown to us, independent of any sentient influence.

I'm sorry, but what you have there isn't worth a nickel. Basically, all you are doing is asking a couple questions. You haven't proven anything, only reaffirmed the mystery. You say that the cause has to be "greater than the universe." Well, define "greater." The cause could be nothing more than an infinite ripple in space. Would you call that "greater" than all that has come after? And you sound like a shady car salesman with your, "These facts are supported by known laws of physics." Since when is B.S supported by the known laws of physics? I ask.

(I hope you don't think I'm trying to be belligerent. I just need to speak my mind.)

Return to “Science”