Science Proves God

[Napoléon]

BAN HIS ASS!

[Whateverist]

The man is on a mission .. to spread the laws of science. Why does scientific theory always sound like commandments in the mouth of a creationist?

[Cinjin]

Jeopardy Answer:

I prefer my horses to be alive and ready for a lifetime of grueling, thankless servitude.

Jeopardy Question:
What did Yahweh say when Lucifer asked him about the humans he created?







... give it a sec. Some of you'll get that.

[Ryantology]

The argument goes like this:

“Creationism is not valid, because it merely sticks "God" into the gaps in science.”

No. Creationism is not valid because no evidence of any kind exists to support it. That you and your ilk attempt to fill the gaps with God caulk is entirely beside the point.

[FallentoReason]

I guess the OP is a worthy attempt.. Maybe Allah is real!

[KnockEmOuttt]

Nah, he's looking for some souls to save.

[Ace Otana]

Nah, he's looking for some souls to save.

What's a soul?

[Tiberius]

Universe means everything that exists. All matter and energy, including the earth, the galaxies, and the contents of intergalactic space, regarded as a whole. Time is nothing more than a measure of change that we arbitrarily use. If there was a Big Bang, as some imagine, that still would not answer the question; where did all that matter come from? It would still have to have had a beginning before which it didn’t exist.

Given that we exist inside the universe, and have no way of knowing what lies outside the observable universe, we cannot say if the universe is simply the only one, or one of many, or part of some larger mechanism of universe creation. I put to you that if you take "universe" to mean literally everything that exists, then God is part of the universe, and by your own argument God at some point had a beginning.

If you deny this, then please answer me these questions:

1) If God can exist external to the universe, why can't other things? That is to say, do you admit the possibility that there may be things existing external to the universe which obey different laws to the universe itself?

2) If God can be used as your trump card for the "everything that exists has a cause" type argument, do you admit the possibility that the universe itself may well be one of these exceptions too?

As for time, I'm afraid it is far more than an "arbitrary" measure of how things change. We have experimented on time; it exists as much as anything we observe. Einstein created some of his most famous theories based on his observations of how time slows down the faster you move through space.

Again, you say that the matter which made up the early universe had to come from somewhere...well, why? If the universe at that point (the singularity) was timeless as science suggests it was, then cause and effect simply do not come into play. The matter was there; there was no time; it didn't have a beginning since to have a beginning requires time to exist.

Since everything that existed (the universe) didn’t exist, wouldn’t there be nothing? To say it didn’t have a beginning is saying it was eternal, which violates known laws of physics.

That was my point; science doesn't say the universe didn't exist. Science points towards a singularity, which contained all matter and energy of the early universe. The singularity was timeless; which is different to "eternal" in that "eternal" implies that time always existed. At the point of singularity, time did not exist.

Yes, it violates the known laws of physics, but remember that the known laws of physics are what we observe about our current universe. The singularity obeyed completely different laws. Again, this is what science says, and if you deny this, then you'll have to change the entire purpose of your argument (which is to say that "science" proves God).

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.

I never said the universe was infinitely old. Infinitely old requires an infinite amount of time; science suggests that time itself started at the moment of the Big Bang. To say the universe as we see it "had a beginning" does not mean it didn't exist in some form before hand. A cake has a beginning (as a cake), but before that point it existed in numerous parts (flour, eggs, etc.). Likewise, the universe existed as a singularity (as science suggests...remember it was you who wanted to talk about science), which was timeless and therefore did not ever have a point where it didn't exist.

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.

Right, and my point (and science's point) is that whilst the universe as we know it came into existence, it already existed as a singularity prior to that point. The singularity never "came into existence"; it could not, since it is by definition timeless, and for cause/effect to work requires time. The singularity is the uncaused cause that you speak of.

Though for the sake of logic I'll point out that your statement "there must be a single uncaused cause" is plain wrong. Logically speaking, all we can say is that there must have been at least one uncaused cause.

But it is an absolute scientific truth that from nothing, nothing comes.

If you speak in absolutes, you are not doing science. In science, there are no absolutes, because we cannot prove anything with science; we can just get a good idea. Yes, something we deduce with science may be absolutely true, but as fallible beings we are incapable of knowing whether it is or not.

The former six facts prove it.

Do you understand what an "assumption" is? Some of your facts are quite simply not facts; they are assumptions. Unless you can prove that they are facts, your argument is not sound.

It is a valid statement based on known laws of biology.

Right, and the fact that there may be laws of biology that we do not know about yet renders it completely useless in an argument using absolutes. You can only use it as an assumption; at which point you cannot claim your argument is necessarily sound (though it may be valid).

Again, it has never been demonstrated in the lab or observed in nature that life comes from nonliving matter.

Prior to a few weeks ago, we'd never demonstrated in a lab or observed in nature the existence of the Higgs boson. This can also be said for most sub-atomic particles over the last 50 years. Science is ever growing; just because something has never been demonstrated in a lab or observed in nature does not mean it can never happen.

The assumption is proved by the foregoing facts.

Again, some of your so-called "facts" are assumptions themselves.

In conclusion, I believe you either do not know what science is about, or you are being disingenuous in order to try and win an argument (neither will bode well for you here). This entire thread is disproved by the very title, which suggests that science "proved" something. Science never proves things; it cannot, due to falsifiability being one of its core components. In addition to not knowing what science is about, you seem very ill-versed in actual scientific discovery, as well as basic logic (your use of valid but unsound arguments, for example). I'd suggest at the very least you do some reading about science; at most, extend that reading to the latest scientific discoveries and theories concerning the beginning of the universe, and of course how to create sound logical arguments.

[Napoléon]

We are still debating him? What about the fact that he's already been shown to have plastered this shit on innumerable other places around the internet? And by the looks of it he's been banned on most of those places and clearly isn't interested in discussion.

[downbeatplumb]

We are still debating him? What about the fact that he's already been shown to have plastered this shit on innumerable other places around the internet? And by the looks of it he's been banned on most of those places and clearly isn't interested in discussion.

But has he broken the rules here yet?

One of the things I like about this site is the 'gentle touch' of the admin.