Science Still Points To God [Spirituality & Religion]
[youtube=https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=LRZaBLQJ_ag]
61-69, M
This page is a permanent link to the reply below and its nested replies. See all post replies »
Bushranger · 70-79, M
The universe exists, it can be observed, measured and predictions made based on those observations and measurements. Stars produce the elements in the universe by nuclear fusion so, in the words of Carl Sagan, "We are all made of star stuff...." These are observable facts, the laws of physics are immutable and have existed since the origin of the universe.
Regardless of how the universe came into existence, everything still exists and continues to operate according to physics. But we can make some assumptions:
1/ The universe came about as the result of the rapid expansion of a singularity. I'm not an astrophysicist and if I make any errors here, please let me know. Now, it's possible that this has been something that has been happening forever; rapid expansion followed by contraction to a singularity which then expands,[i]ad infinitum[/i].
2/ The universe was created but a God which is outside space time. When God said "Let there be light..." was that the start of the big bang? This would imply a hands off God who created the everything needed for the universe to continue forever with no ongoing intervention.
3/ The existence of a God outside space time but one that is more involved with creation and continues to intervene in the creation. This would imply ongoing changes in the universe.
Regardless of the assumption that one wishes to follow, the universe still began and continues to exist. It can still be observed and measured and those observations and measurements are purely materialistic. It is my contention that science, while needing an ethical direction, needs to answer the question "What?", not "Why?".
To answer the second question, one would need to look at philosophy and religion. So a researcher may believe in God, but still practice science. The religious side of that researcher may provide a metaphysical explanation for their work, but wouldn't necessarily change the results of their research.
Regardless of how the universe came into existence, it does exist and the observation and measurement of it does not necessarily, point to God. Philosophy on the other hand, can do.
Regardless of how the universe came into existence, everything still exists and continues to operate according to physics. But we can make some assumptions:
1/ The universe came about as the result of the rapid expansion of a singularity. I'm not an astrophysicist and if I make any errors here, please let me know. Now, it's possible that this has been something that has been happening forever; rapid expansion followed by contraction to a singularity which then expands,[i]ad infinitum[/i].
2/ The universe was created but a God which is outside space time. When God said "Let there be light..." was that the start of the big bang? This would imply a hands off God who created the everything needed for the universe to continue forever with no ongoing intervention.
3/ The existence of a God outside space time but one that is more involved with creation and continues to intervene in the creation. This would imply ongoing changes in the universe.
Regardless of the assumption that one wishes to follow, the universe still began and continues to exist. It can still be observed and measured and those observations and measurements are purely materialistic. It is my contention that science, while needing an ethical direction, needs to answer the question "What?", not "Why?".
To answer the second question, one would need to look at philosophy and religion. So a researcher may believe in God, but still practice science. The religious side of that researcher may provide a metaphysical explanation for their work, but wouldn't necessarily change the results of their research.
Regardless of how the universe came into existence, it does exist and the observation and measurement of it does not necessarily, point to God. Philosophy on the other hand, can do.
1-25 of 54
Lila15 · 22-25, F
@Bushranger That's the Kalam Explanation - that the universe began to exist, so it must have been brought into existence by something outside of time and space; i.e. an act of will by a powerful being. But this assumes that the universe could not have been brought into existence by a purely natural process, like the collision of branes in a multiverse or fluctuations in a quantum field or other theories I'm not familiar with.
Lila15 · 22-25, F
Bushranger · 70-79, M
@Lila15 Yep and could prove the existence of any number and types of Gods in a metaphysical sense. There will always be an argument about who's interpretation is right or even if a God exists at all. My personal view is that I do not believe in God, but as God can't be disproved, there is a possibility that one exists.
GodSpeed63 · 61-69, M
@Bushranger @Lila15 Science does point to a Creator, there too much evidence to believe otherwise.
Bushranger · 70-79, M
@GodSpeed63 Your evidence relies on philosophical and religious explanations. Science shows us what the universe is made of and attempts to explain how it works. Your point is the "Why?" question which science doesn't need to address.
To say that God created science means nothing in the study of the universe as the universe is there, regardless of its origin.
To say that God created science means nothing in the study of the universe as the universe is there, regardless of its origin.
GodSpeed63 · 61-69, M
@Bushranger [quote]Your evidence relies on philosophical and religious explanations.[/quote]
I've said it before, God is the Author of science and , for Lila's sake, uses it to show us His creation and how He's made it all work.
I've said it before, God is the Author of science and , for Lila's sake, uses it to show us His creation and how He's made it all work.
Lila15 · 22-25, F
@GodSpeed63 I would need objective proof, not just inference like "where did everything come from if not God." Your answer leads to the question of who created God, and saying "God doesn't need a creator" is special pleading. Also, your "proof" doesn't lead to any particular religion. A Muslim would say it proves the existence of Allah, a follower of Asatru would say it proves the existence of Odin, etc. So even accepting your "logical" proof, you have to switch gears to a narrative "proof" to demonstrate why your particular religion out of the thousands of religions is the one true one.
Bushranger · 70-79, M
@Lila15 [quote] You can't disprove a negative. Bertrand Russell proposed a teapot orbiting between Mars and Jupiter; we can't prove that doesn't exist either, but it's unlikely that it does. So the person claiming God's existence has to provide proof.[/quote]
I agree fully, I was thinking at one time of becoming a Pastafarian just to be able to say that I belonged to a religion with a non-existent God 😉
I agree fully, I was thinking at one time of becoming a Pastafarian just to be able to say that I belonged to a religion with a non-existent God 😉
GodSpeed63 · 61-69, M
@Lila15 [quote]You can't disprove a negative.[/quote]
Who's disproving a negative? We're talking about the one true God, Yahweh, who lives forever and He's no negative.
[quote] I would need objective proof,[/quote]
Just look in the mirror, you'll find your objective proof. He created you.
[quote]where did everything come from if not God."[/quote]
Alright, you tell us where everything came from with substantial evidence to support it.
[quote]Your answer leads to the question of who created God, and saying "God doesn't need a creator" is special pleading.[/quote]
God, Yahweh, was never created by man or creature. It's not special pleading that I'm making here, it's the truth.
Who's disproving a negative? We're talking about the one true God, Yahweh, who lives forever and He's no negative.
[quote] I would need objective proof,[/quote]
Just look in the mirror, you'll find your objective proof. He created you.
[quote]where did everything come from if not God."[/quote]
Alright, you tell us where everything came from with substantial evidence to support it.
[quote]Your answer leads to the question of who created God, and saying "God doesn't need a creator" is special pleading.[/quote]
God, Yahweh, was never created by man or creature. It's not special pleading that I'm making here, it's the truth.
GodSpeed63 · 61-69, M
@Bushranger [quote]I was thinking at one time of becoming a Pastafarian just to be able to say that I belonged to a religion with a non-existent God [/quote]
Why would you want to belong to a religion?
Why would you want to belong to a religion?
Bushranger · 70-79, M
@GodSpeed63 You do have problems with grasping context at times.
Bushranger · 70-79, M
@Lila15 OK, I just noticed an error where I said that philosophy does prove the existence of God. I really should have been can. It's always good to review your own posts.
GodSpeed63 · 61-69, M
@Bushranger Those are your words I quoted aren't they? You did quote those words, did you not?
Bushranger · 70-79, M
@GodSpeed63 Yes, I certainly did and I'll not withdraw from the statement. However, in lieu of a sarcasm tab, I used a wink emoji to indicate that I wasn't serious. Or did you miss that?
Oh, and before you tell me how bad sarcasm is, I already know, but don't really care.
Oh, and before you tell me how bad sarcasm is, I already know, but don't really care.
suzie1960 · 61-69, F
@GodSpeed63 [quote]Who's disproving a negative? We're talking about the one true God, Yahweh, who lives forever and He's no negative.[/quote]
You keep making that claim but it's worthless as you offer no real, independently verifiable, evidence to support it. Can you prove The Flying Spaghetti Monster or Russell's Teapot don't exist?
[quote]Just look in the mirror, you'll find your objective proof. He created you.[/quote]
That doesn't prove your made up "god jehovah" thing is real. As any Pastafarian could tell you, it actually proves The Flying Spaghetti Monster created us.
[quote]Alright, you tell us where everything came from with substantial evidence to support it.[/quote]
Let's see some substantial evidence to support your claims.
[quote]God, Yahweh, was never created by man or creature. It's not special pleading that I'm making here, it's the truth.[/quote]
That is special pleading. OK, the universe doesn't need a creator, that's the truth.
You keep making that claim but it's worthless as you offer no real, independently verifiable, evidence to support it. Can you prove The Flying Spaghetti Monster or Russell's Teapot don't exist?
[quote]Just look in the mirror, you'll find your objective proof. He created you.[/quote]
That doesn't prove your made up "god jehovah" thing is real. As any Pastafarian could tell you, it actually proves The Flying Spaghetti Monster created us.
[quote]Alright, you tell us where everything came from with substantial evidence to support it.[/quote]
Let's see some substantial evidence to support your claims.
[quote]God, Yahweh, was never created by man or creature. It's not special pleading that I'm making here, it's the truth.[/quote]
That is special pleading. OK, the universe doesn't need a creator, that's the truth.
GodSpeed63 · 61-69, M
@suzie1960 Suzie Q, Unless you really do believe in that thing, it's worthless to bring it up all the time. Looking in the mirror is definitely evidence that God created you. You saw substantial evidence already. I can't help it if you don't accept it. You still need to give evidence for your claims like the one you gave here: [quote]That is special pleading. OK, the universe doesn't need a creator, that's the truth[/quote] Where is your evidence?
Bushranger · 70-79, M
@GodSpeed63 How is my, or anyone's, reflection proof that God exists. All it proves is that we can see our reflection.
GodSpeed63 · 61-69, M
@Bushranger [quote]How is my, or anyone's, reflection proof that God exists.[/quote]
Question mark on the end there, my friend, not a period. You are living proof that God lives because He created you. If you're going to say that your parents created you? Then you'll have to give an account for your whole family line back to where it began. Can you go back that far?
Question mark on the end there, my friend, not a period. You are living proof that God lives because He created you. If you're going to say that your parents created you? Then you'll have to give an account for your whole family line back to where it began. Can you go back that far?
Bushranger · 70-79, M
@GodSpeed63 Ooops, my bad. Thank goodness I have you to correct my grammar.
No, I would never go for a reply as trite as that. But that is based on the idea of creation. As I said originally, the universe already exists, regardless of how it came about. If it was a God, so be it. If it was the result of some other force, that's good too. We are obviously here and our presence supports that. Again, what you are asking is the "Why?" question. Leave that to philosophy and religious debate.
No, I would never go for a reply as trite as that. But that is based on the idea of creation. As I said originally, the universe already exists, regardless of how it came about. If it was a God, so be it. If it was the result of some other force, that's good too. We are obviously here and our presence supports that. Again, what you are asking is the "Why?" question. Leave that to philosophy and religious debate.
GodSpeed63 · 61-69, M
@Bushranger [quote]No, I would never go for a reply as trite as that.[/quote]
Why not? I can tell you clearly that my family line goes all the way back to Adam and Eve. But, you're willing disagree with me on that being that Adam and Eve were created by God. Yet, you're unable to trace your own family line back as far as it will go. That's somethin' else.
Why not? I can tell you clearly that my family line goes all the way back to Adam and Eve. But, you're willing disagree with me on that being that Adam and Eve were created by God. Yet, you're unable to trace your own family line back as far as it will go. That's somethin' else.
Bushranger · 70-79, M
@GodSpeed63 Well, according to your belief so does mine and everyone else's. The alternative and many people would say more logical, view is that we can all trace our families back to the common ancestor between humans and apes.
Bushranger · 70-79, M
@GodSpeed63 But that is a diversion from the original intent of my post. We are not discussing where life came from, but the universe in general. Please keep it on track. There are many other places where the origin of life can be discussed.
GodSpeed63 · 61-69, M
@Bushranger [quote] The alternative and many people would say more logical, view is that we can all trace our families back to the common ancestor between humans and apes.[/quote]
That's faulty human logic which doesn't hold water. According to the Truth, the common ancestors for humans are Adam and Eve.
That's faulty human logic which doesn't hold water. According to the Truth, the common ancestors for humans are Adam and Eve.
1-25 of 54