Objective evidence of God

[46AND2]

The universe as we know it is what we have to talk about.

Sure, which is why we have only been able to determine what happened since the inception of the universe. From the time of the singularity. Just because we don't know how that singularity came to be does not mean it MUST have been God.

It is analogous to the ancient world creating the sun god, or the lightning god, or whatever else they didn't have the capability to understand. Those phenomena were beyond their comprehension, just as the inception of our universe is to us.

We also know that nothing in our universe existed prior to its existence and that includes space.

How can we know that if we don't know what existed "prior" to our universe? Thus far, we have only been able to trace back all the matter of the universe to a single point in time. Indeed, actually the beginning of time; hence my quotes around "before" the singularity, or "prior" to the universe.

I understand the need to attribute the beginning to a god. The idea of something outside our universe, or tangential to our universe, or what have you is a very foreign concept that is exceedingly difficult to envision. However, that doesn't mean that there can be no natural explanation. And when I say natural, I'm not even speaking about nature as we know it in our universe, but there are even things ABOUT our universe that we don't understand.

That is the consensus of most astrophysicists, that literally nothing existed. The singularity came out of nowhere into nowhere and began the somewhere.

I think you are wrong about this, but I'd be happy to look into it. Cosmology is not my forte.

Most astrophysicists and physicists disagree. From all evidence so far, the universe had a beginning and that there was no space, matter, energy or time. Space which is needed for a vacuum did not exist.

Yes, all those things began at the beginning of the universe. But why must the inception of the universe be limited by only these rules. Dan Barker demonstrated an example of what I mean:

[I am indebted to Dan Barker for the following critique. The idea and some of the examples are his and can be found here.]

In the first premise, the proponent of this argument appears to be making a category mistake. The theist says that "whatever [thing--the word is implicit]" that begins to exist must have a cause. The theist, then, switches that "thing" to "the universe." The problem, here, is that it may be inappropriate to treat the universe in the same way one treats some "thing" in the universe.

For example, let's say that I have a number set in this form: [2,4,6,8 . . .]. From studying "inside" the set, I draw the conclusion that every thing is two counts away from the next thing. My statement is perfectly valid inside the set. Two is two counts from four, four is two counts from six, etc.

But the rule that is valid within the set is not necessarily valid of the set itself. Let's say that my set above is in a list of sets. Set 1 is in the form [1,2,3,4 . . .], the set I mentioned above is Set 2, the next set in the list, Set 3, is in the form [3,6,9,12 . . .].

Now, I extracted a rule from Set 2 that says everything is two counts away from the next thing. If I applied this rule to the set itself, however, my statement would not be true. Set 2 is neither two counts away from Set 1 nor two counts away from Set 3.

This, however, is exactly what the theist is doing when he goes from the statement that "Whatever [thing] begins to exist has a cause of its existence," to his next statement and conclusion that "The universe began to exist. Therefore, the universe has a cause of its existence." This argument treats the universe as a "thing," and not "the set of all things." This is the category mistake.

[Note that it is true of all sets that a set is made up of the sum of its parts. Sometimes rules of the sets do apply to the set itself, but not necessarily so.]

Debunking Christianity: Kalam Cosmological Argument--Premise One

Fair enough. I can respect that. In fact, let me take this moment to congratulate you on your objectivity and open-mindedness. Even though we disagree I can respect a person who responds in honesty regardless of how that relates to mine in viewpoints. Thanks. The hug is for actually making an argument against the conclusion rather than claiming there is no objective evidence to support it.

Cheers. I'm probably a bit different than the average atheist in that I would actually prefer to believe in the Christian God. But I'm also very honest with myself, in order to find actual truth. I'm perfectly open to being convinced either way, because that is what I think belief is. The conviction based on the evidence and/or experiences you have observed. It is not choice to believe one or the other. You are either convinced of something, or you are not. If you have not been convinced of a god, you cannot simply choose to believe in one.

What I am talking about are the conditions that allowed for the process at all.

In the vastness of the universe, is it unreasonable to think that conditions might occur "somewhere" by chance? We just happen to be in that somewhere. This is where probability is pretty meaningless. What are the chances that there is a place in the universe with just the right conditions to sustain life? 100% We are proof of that.

If God made a special perfect place for us...why bother with the other 99.999999999+% of the universe that is completely hostile to life?

Can you cite one example when intelligence did not arise from intelligence?

Any answer I give will not be acceptable to you, since you already believe in intelligent design.

But I will say this...the question is irrelevant. Prior to the first humans who flew (in a plane, silly ;-) ), could anybody cite an example of humans flying? Did that mean it was impossible?

Of course we don't know but you do see the problem do you not? If it was a backward flowing regression we would still need the first cause no matter how far back the regression went. But I don't know is an acceptable answer.

Why would we still need a first cause? Suppose somewhere down the regression, there need not be a first cause for whatever it was in that particular reality? There is, in your opinion after all, no first cause necessary for god. And that is a HUGE reason why I don't agree with philosophical logic questions trying to prove god. Because it always boils down to the fact that god is the exception to the logic. If you allow yourself an exception, what is the point of using logic in the first place?

What started the metaverse? See the same problem as with the regression.

See above.

Well first of all I want to say upfront that the universe's beginning is just one piece of the puzzle and that it is only one cog in the whole argument for God's existence. The natural explanations as shown above are not probable due to their problems and give rise to the question how natural causes can attribute to the natural world that didn't exist prior to the natural world or the natural realm, then this cause was outside the natural realm by necessity.

Outside our present natural realm. What is it that demands that no other natural realm could have kicked us off?

Space, matter, energy and time did not exist to have natural condition in or on or from in any time.

 

[46AND2]

Im glad you acknowledge it isn't a God of the gaps argument.

Empirical evidence is not able to differentiate between (atheistic, for want of a better term) natural processes and God authored natural processes.

All that is left is arguments from logic, philosophy and experience. None of which are truly objective.

And hence, a tacit admission that there is NO objective evidence for God.

 

[Oncedeceived]

I am saying that it hasn't been falsified, nor have you proven your claim that there was nothing prior to the emergence of our universe.

Ok. It is string theory, and according to my source it is due to the fact that it can't be falsified using the technology we have now and technological equipment that it would take doesn't exist and isn't anywhere close to existing. So it is a moot point. We can hypothesize of ways that perhaps there was something that came before but we are talking evidence and all the evidence we have currently points to a beginning to the universe that came from nothing. If you wish to bring forth evidence for something that trumps that evidence then by all means do so, but since most astrophysicists/physicists aren't aware of any, I imagine you don't have any.

You still need to supply evidence for this claim.

Evidence for what claim? That the universe had a beginning? That the universe came out of nothing? All those things are evident from evidence we currently have. If you wish to claim that something was there prior to that, it is your claim and you have to provide evidence for it.

Yes, I do.

Your posts tell a different story.

You have yet to supply evidence that nothing existed before the emergence of our Universe, for a start. All you do is assert it. That is not evidence.

[FONT=Verdana, Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif][SIZE=-1]There's another important quality of the Big Bang that makes it unique. While an explosion of a man-made bomb expands through air, the Big Bang did not expand through anything. That's because there was no space to expand through at the beginning of time. Rather, physicists believe the Big Bang created and stretched space itself, expanding the universe.

Origins: CERN: Ideas: The Big Bang | Exploratorium

[/SIZE][/FONT]
But now Vilenkin says he has convincing evidence in hand: The universe had a distinct beginning — though he can’t pinpoint the time. After 35 years of looking backward, he says, he’s found that before our universe there was nothing, nothing at all, not even time itself.

What Came Before the Big Bang? | DiscoverMagazine.com

The problem is that you can not differentiate between objective evidence and your faith based beliefs.

No, there you go again. My "faith" based beliefs are conclusions and the objective evidence is what supports it.

How?

IF God exists there are claims and if there is evidence to support those claims it support His existence. Simple really.

 

[Loudmouth]

Ok. It is string theory, and according to my source it is due to the fact that it can't be falsified using the technology we have now and technological equipment that it would take doesn't exist and isn't anywhere close to existing. So it is a moot point. We can hypothesize of ways that perhaps there was something that came before but we are talking evidence and all the evidence we have currently points to a beginning to the universe that came from nothing.

What evidence is that?

More importantly, where is the objective evidence that the universe came from God?

Evidence for what claim? That the universe had a beginning? That the universe came out of nothing? All those things are evident from evidence we currently have.

See above.

If you wish to claim that something was there prior to that, it is your claim and you have to provide evidence for it.

You are the one claiming that God was there. Where is your evidence?

[FONT=Verdana, Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif][SIZE=-1]There's another important quality of the Big Bang that makes it unique. While an explosion of a man-made bomb expands through air, the Big Bang did not expand through anything. That's because there was no space to expand through at the beginning of time. Rather, physicists believe the Big Bang created and stretched space itself, expanding the universe.

Origins: CERN: Ideas: The Big Bang | Exploratorium

[/SIZE][/FONT]
But now Vilenkin says he has convincing evidence in hand: The universe had a distinct beginning — though he can’t pinpoint the time. After 35 years of looking backward, he says, he’s found that before our universe there was nothing, nothing at all, not even time itself.

What Came Before the Big Bang? | DiscoverMagazine.com

So the Big Bang, which is something, created space. I thought you said it was nothing . . . or God, you really aren't consistent on that one.

No, there you go again. My "faith" based beliefs are conclusions and the objective evidence is what supports it.

How?

IF God exists there are claims and if there is evidence to support those claims it support His existence. Simple really.

Claim: Leprechauns make rainbows.

Obejctive evidence: There are rainbows.

Conclusion: Rainbows are objective evidence that supports the existence of Leprechauns.

Do you consider that to be a valid argument?

 

[Oncedeceived]

Sure, which is why we have only been able to determine what happened since the inception of the universe. From the time of the singularity. Just because we don't know how that singularity came to be does not mean it MUST have been God.

That is true. I am not claiming that it does. I am claiming that the fact that the universe exists and had a beginning which brought into existence matter, energy, space and time, supports the existence of God due to the claims that He created the universe (it had a beginning) including matter, energy,space and time.

It is analogous to the ancient world creating the sun god, or the lightning god, or whatever else they didn't have the capability to understand. Those phenomena were beyond their comprehension, just as the inception of our universe is to us.

If God exists as we claim and the Bible narrative is true there are certain claims that can be falsified. If it were shown that our universe as we know had been eternal that would falsify the claim. However, the fact that our universe had a beginning which included the creation of all matter, energy, space and time supports God's existence.

How can we know that if we don't know what existed "prior" to our universe? Thus far, we have only been able to trace back all the matter of the universe to a single point in time. Indeed, actually the beginning of time; hence my quotes around "before" the singularity, or "prior" to the universe.

I don't think we can know if anything "prior" to our universe existed but although I don't believe there to be anything (but I can't know) it doesn't really matter in the case of God's existence. It would only matter if our universe itself didn't have a beginning. So it isn't a point of contention in my claims. Although we have gone off on a tangent here, the number 2 claim which was The Universe created itself. I think we agree that 2 as far as the universe creating itself is not an option...correct?

I understand the need to attribute the beginning to a god. The idea of something outside our universe, or tangential to our universe, or what have you is a very foreign concept that is exceedingly difficult to envision. However, that doesn't mean that there can be no natural explanation. And when I say natural, I'm not even speaking about nature as we know it in our universe, but there are even things ABOUT our universe that we don't understand.

Ok so we have on one hand, me claiming it is God and you claiming that it could be a natural occurring process of some kind. In reality, that doesn't mean that that natural process stands alone any more than any other. But lets give you that for a moment. We are looking at two possibilities. However, that doesn't negate that this could be evidence for God. It supports the claims. So it doesn't matter that there might be other explanations, what matters is whether or not the evidence supports the claims being made. As it stands alone it is only a piece just as any piece of evidence contributes to the whole. So this is not proof that God exists but it lends support to His existence.

I think you are wrong about this, but I'd be happy to look into it. Cosmology is not my forte.

Ok, great. It is a very interesting field.

Yes, all those things began at the beginning of the universe. But why must the inception of the universe be limited by only these rules. Dan Barker demonstrated an example of what I mean:



Debunking Christianity: Kalam Cosmological Argument--Premise One

I will read this later. I am sorry but I forgot it was in here and didn't read it before responding.

Cheers. I'm probably a bit different than the average atheist in that I would actually prefer to believe in the Christian God.

So you would be better characterized as an agnostic?

But I'm also very honest with myself, in order to find actual truth. I'm perfectly open to being convinced either way, because that is what I think belief is. The conviction based on the evidence and/or experiences you have observed.

Don't take this overly personal or weird but . This is totally cool. My respect for you is rising. Whether or not you ever find the tipping of the evidence to God or not, you are not closed minded or filled with bias. Good for you.

It is not choice to believe one or the other. You are either convinced of something, or you are not.

Exactly....

If you have not been convinced of a god, you cannot simply choose to believe in one.

I totally agree.

In the vastness of the universe, is it unreasonable to think that conditions might occur "somewhere" by chance? We just happen to be in that somewhere. This is where probability is pretty meaningless. What are the chances that there is a place in the universe with just the right conditions to sustain life? 100% We are proof of that.

Well we will see what you think when we look into the amount of fine tuning there is for our existence here.

If God made a special perfect place for us...why bother with the other 99.999999999+% of the universe that is completely hostile to life?

IT is all necessary.

Any answer I give will not be acceptable to you, since you already believe in intelligent design.

I might not agree with what you might answer, but I hope that I give valid reason for why. I believe in intelligent design but that is not because it isn't without reason.

But I will say this...the question is irrelevant. Prior to the first humans who flew (in a plane, silly ;-) ), could anybody cite an example of humans flying? Did that mean it was impossible?

Sure. However, when discussing the existence of God and providing evidence to support that I hope that you can be open enough to say that yes it does support that conclusion. You may not think it is sufficient in itself to say God exists, but that the evidence provides the support to the claims being made.

Why would we still need a first cause? Suppose somewhere down the regression, there need not be a first cause for whatever it was in that particular reality? There is, in your opinion after all, no first cause necessary for god. And that is a HUGE reason why I don't agree with philosophical logic questions trying to prove god. Because it always boils down to the fact that god is the exception to the logic. If you allow yourself an exception, what is the point of using logic in the first place?

Ok. I can say that a legit opposing option could be just that but it then becomes a choice doesn't it? It comes down to other areas of evidence and what that evidence supports. That is the nature of discovery and belief and why we believe what we do.

See above.

Ok.

Outside our present natural realm. What is it that demands that no other natural realm could have kicked us off?

That brings us to #3. What was the something or someone that created the universe. That is where we decide whether or not there is evidence for God by the evidence that supports the claims.

 

[MarkT]

A God may be able to, yes. Now, just show us objective evidence this is how the universe was created.

If a God can create a universe, yes, then the existence of the universe points to God.

 

[Loudmouth]

If a God can create a universe, yes, then the existence of the universe points to God.

We are asking for evidence of the "If" in your statement.

 

[Loudmouth]

That is true. I am not claiming that it does. I am claiming that the fact that the universe exists and had a beginning which brought into existence matter, energy, space and time, supports the existence of God due to the claims that He created the universe (it had a beginning) including matter, energy,space and time.

You still need to provide evidence that God was responsible for the beginning of the universe.

 

[CabVet]

If a God can create a universe, yes, then the existence of the universe points to God.

And you are expecting us to believe on that statement just because you say so. But what we are looking for is objective evidence.

 

[CabVet]

That is true. I am not claiming that it does. I am claiming that the fact that the universe exists and had a beginning which brought into existence matter, energy, space and time, supports the existence of God due to the claims that He created the universe (it had a beginning) including matter, energy,space and time.

That is the exact same thing as saying that a tree is evidence that God exists. And I believe that was already done in this thread.

Say I find a dead body in the street. Is the dead body (and nothing else) evidence that John Doe is the murderer? Someone killed the person, right?

You are using something which you cannot demonstrate that was created by God (actually, you can't even demonstrate that the universe was created) as evidence that God exists. In order to use the universe as evidence, you have to do two things:

1. Demonstrate that the universe was created by a creator, and

2. Demonstrate that the creator is your God.

The same applies to ED's tree.

 

[46AND2]

That is true. I am not claiming that it does. I am claiming that the fact that the universe exists and had a beginning which brought into existence matter, energy, space and time, supports the existence of God due to the claims that He created the universe (it had a beginning) including matter, energy,space and time.


If God exists as we claim and the Bible narrative is true there are certain claims that can be falsified. If it were shown that our universe as we know had been eternal that would falsify the claim. However, the fact that our universe had a beginning which included the creation of all matter, energy, space and time supports God's existence.



I don't think we can know if anything "prior" to our universe existed but although I don't believe there to be anything (but I can't know) it doesn't really matter in the case of God's existence. It would only matter if our universe itself didn't have a beginning. So it isn't a point of contention in my claims. Although we have gone off on a tangent here, the number 2 claim which was The Universe created itself. I think we agree that 2 as far as the universe creating itself is not an option...correct?



Ok so we have on one hand, me claiming it is God and you claiming that it could be a natural occurring process of some kind. In reality, that doesn't mean that that natural process stands alone any more than any other. But lets give you that for a moment. We are looking at two possibilities. However, that doesn't negate that this could be evidence for God. It supports the claims. So it doesn't matter that there might be other explanations, what matters is whether or not the evidence supports the claims being made. As it stands alone it is only a piece just as any piece of evidence contributes to the whole. So this is not proof that God exists but it lends support to His existence.



Ok, great. It is a very interesting field.


I will read this later. I am sorry but I forgot it was in here and didn't read it before responding.




So you would be better characterized as an agnostic?

Don't take this overly personal or weird but . This is totally cool. My respect for you is rising. Whether or not you ever find the tipping of the evidence to God or not, you are not closed minded or filled with bias. Good for you.



Exactly....



I totally agree.


Well we will see what you think when we look into the amount of fine tuning there is for our existence here.



IT is all necessary.



I might not agree with what you might answer, but I hope that I give valid reason for why. I believe in intelligent design but that is not because it isn't without reason.



Sure. However, when discussing the existence of God and providing evidence to support that I hope that you can be open enough to say that yes it does support that conclusion. You may not think it is sufficient in itself to say God exists, but that the evidence provides the support to the claims being made.



Ok. I can say that a legit opposing option could be just that but it then becomes a choice doesn't it? It comes down to other areas of evidence and what that evidence supports. That is the nature of discovery and belief and why we believe what we do.




Ok.



That brings us to #3. What was the something or someone that created the universe. That is where we decide whether or not there is evidence for God by the evidence that supports the claims.

The problem is that God can be used to explain ANYTHING that we don't yet know. As I have stated before, I'm not arguing against the position of theism, or attempting to disprove him. I don't think that is within the scope of scientific discovery.

So your question is whether or not what we know about the origin of the universe is consistent with what the Bible claims about his abilities. Well...yes, of course. Because his abilities can encompass anything.

But the same could have been said about Ra before we understood what the sun is (in a limited sense, as he was not claimed to have had all-encompassing powers as the Christian God is). What was claimed about Ra was consistent with what they observed about the sun at that time, limited as it was. But as we have progressed further in our understanding about the universe, so too has God's interaction with the universe changed. (and no, I'm not trying to equate Ra to the Christian God, but rather speaking in terms of god in general.) Perhaps a better example concerns those who have accepted theistic evolution. The fact that God exists has not changed in their minds, but the degree in which he interacts with us, has. OEC and YEC both claim to worship the Christian God. And because his abilities are limitless, his interaction boils down to choice, rather than capability. Therefore, an old earth and/or evolution do not debunk the Christian God.

So what if we do find out if the singularity was caused naturally. Would that really debunk God? I don't think so. It would be just one more thing that he allowed to happen naturally, and the scope of his involvement would change.

Because God has such a broad range of abilities, I don't think it is possible to debunk him. As such, if a conclusion is to be made, it can only be in the affirmative of his existence, once any natural explanations have been ruled out, (or, of course, if he decides to make his presence known to all humanity). Failing that, there will always be a debate between the two, regardless of the evidence at hand.

What this means is that as long as the evidence can support either idea, it cannot be used as evidence either for or against either. Because evidence is used to differentiate between two or more ideas. If it can't do that, it isn't evidence.

 

[HitchSlap]

If a God can create a universe, yes, then the existence of the universe points to God.

In that case, if Bob could create a universe, yes, then the existence of the universe points to Bob.

 

[46AND2]

The problem is that God can be used to explain ANYTHING that we don't yet know. As I have stated before, I'm not arguing against the position of theism, or attempting to disprove him. I don't think that is within the scope of scientific discovery.

So your question is whether or not what we know about the origin of the universe is consistent with what the Bible claims about his abilities. Well...yes, of course. Because his abilities can encompass anything.

But the same could have been said about Ra before we understood what the sun is (in a limited sense, as he was not claimed to have had all-encompassing powers as the Christian God is). What was claimed about Ra was consistent with what they observed about the sun at that time, limited as it was. But as we have progressed further in our understanding about the universe, so too has God's interaction with the universe changed. (and no, I'm not trying to equate Ra to the Christian God, but rather speaking in terms of god in general.) Perhaps a better example concerns those who have accepted theistic evolution. The fact that God exists has not changed in their minds, but the degree in which he interacts with us, has. OEC and YEC both claim to worship the Christian God. And because his abilities are limitless, his interaction boils down to choice, rather than capability. Therefore, an old earth and/or evolution do not debunk the Christian God.

So what if we do find out if the singularity was caused naturally. Would that really debunk God? I don't think so. It would be just one more thing that he allowed to happen naturally, and the scope of his involvement would change.

Because God has such a broad range of abilities, I don't think it is possible to debunk him. As such, if a conclusion is to be made, it can only be in the affirmative of his existence, once any natural explanations have been ruled out, (or, of course, if he decides to make his presence known to all humanity). Failing that, there will always be a debate between the two, regardless of the evidence at hand.

What this means is that as long as the evidence can support either idea, it cannot be used as evidence either for or against either. Because evidence is used to differentiate between two or more ideas. If it can't do that, it isn't evidence.

In a nutshell, when the request is made for objective evidence for God, it is not sufficient to merely present data that is consistent with the claims of God, but rather it need also be at the exclusion of natural explanations. Else, it is not evidence for God.

 

[Subduction Zone]

In that case, if Bob could create a universe, yes, then the existence of the universe points to Bob.

All hail Bob!

 

[bhsmte]

I apologize for the OT question.

Is anyone else having problems with pages on CF loading very slowly and timing out? Just curious whether others are experiencing the same thing or if it is on my end.

Thanks

 

[46AND2]

I apologize for the OT question.

Is anyone else having problems with pages on CF loading very slowly and timing out? Just curious whether others are experiencing the same thing or if it is on my end.

Thanks

Mine's been slow, but hasn't timed out, yet.

 

[Subduction Zone]

Mine's been slow, but hasn't timed out, yet.

I had a patch where I timed out a couple of times. It seems to be running better now.

 

[Black Akuma]

Dude. Subduction Zone.

You gotta watch it with that picture, man. Epilepsy.

 

[CabVet]

Is anyone else having problems with pages on CF loading very slowly and timing out? Just curious whether others are experiencing the same thing or if it is on my end.

I've been having this same problem for the past few hours, and for awhile the site wouldn't load at all. Maybe that's why no objective evidence of God was presented yet??



Nah…

 

[Strathos]

Put a seizure warning on your post, SZ.