scientific evidence of God

That is true, I see a certain science fanboy-ism on the internet in general. Now, science is good for a lot of things, but it does not need enthusiastic fans who don't know what they're doing.

I think people, secular or otherwise, would do a lot better without using science to challenge religion. Science is available to anyone and whatever arguments are based on science would work as well without making religious people distrust science.

 

OMG. Did anyone do a big bang experiment the other day? Has Copernicus actually seen the Sun in the center of a Solar system? Experiment is just one of the possible empirical proofs. I know that experiments are used a lot in american schools, but education is not the same as science! It is possible to make a scientific proof without the experiment. A pen and paper is sometimes more than enough to make a true empirical proof of a theory.

 

No. Really you didn't. Your article is based on several false assumptions.

First, we have no way of knowing if the universe is an open or closed system. If it is an open system, then most of the laws of thermodynamics do not apply to it.

Second, the article presents a false dichotomy. It says that the existence of matter would either have to violate the 1LoT or that God must have created it. There is a third option: it has always existed in one shape or form. Since we have no idea what came before the Big Bang, we cannot say that matter or energy were created there. We can only say that matter, energy, and space-time expanded in the Big Bang, not that they cam from it.

You have presented no scientific evidence for your deity's existence.

 

Why are you trying to change the subject?

Correct. We don't know. And until we have definitive or conclusive evidence, the scientifically and rationally correct as well as intellectually honest answer to the question "How did the Universe begin?" is "We do not know at this time."

It is NOT "God must have done it."

 

No, it was me pointing out your hypocrisy. As for your so called science... Add 1 part science... 1 part theology... mix it all together with fuzzy logic = a logical fallacy... not proof of God.

So who is this God? The God of Islam, Christianity, Hinduism, Flying Spaghetti Monster... ?

Faith begins where reason ends as there is no empirical proof of the theological intangible known as God

 

Quote Originally Posted by iamkurtz View Post
Was that a scientific refutation of the science I posted?

Then we're done.

 

The burden of proof is upon you as it is you who made the initial claim in your OP. Trying to shift the burden of proof to others is a logical fallacy and shows that you cannot defend your own position.

 

I wasn't talking to you. We're done here. Everything has been asked and answered. Go pick a fight with someone else.

- - - Updated - - -

Really I did. Deal with it.

 

I presented you with very clear reasons why your article is wrong. Rather than address those arguments, you are going to say "Nu Uh!" and stick your fingers in your ears?

I think it is fairly clear what the purpose of this thread was. It was NOT to have any kind of adult debate about scientific evidence for God and was instead a Creationist ego stroke-fest.

 

I put it up. You rejected it. Your loss.

 

You presented your reasons with your agenda in mind. And don't tell me why this thread was created. I've seen enough of the God basher threads to last a lifetime. Go over there for your ego stroke.

 

Your article contains logical fallacies and false unevidenced assumptions. You need to own up to that fact.

 

Your opinion.

 

Alright, answer this question then:

Rather than the dichotomy your article presents, why can matter/energy have not always existed? Why must the only options be matter/energy's existence violated the 1LoT by being created or God made it?

Why is the third answer not applicable?

 

See the many links I have put up that answer all of your questions.

 

Kurtz where is evidence in your article showing where the universe is a closed or open system?

- - - Updated - - -

I have. They don't address it all.

 

I've made my case to back up my claims.

 

No you didn't. You posted links to videos that do not in any way address the two points that I am bringing up.

Are you willing to concede that you are wrong on those two points?

 

Scientific Evidence of God
By Bob Dutko

While Intelligent Design skeptics may claim there is no evidence of God, the actual scientific evidence for God's existence is overwhelming, scientifically answering the question, "does God exist?".

In science there is a Law of Physics called the 1st Law of Thermodynamics. Within it is a Conservation of Energy Law that states, as a key principle that all energy in a closed system must be conserved. Okay, fancy language, but what does that mean? It means that while energy can convert into matter (physical “stuff”), and matter into energy, however much total “stuff” there is (matter and energy), there can never be an increase in that total amount or a decrease in that total amount. So however much total “stuff” there is in the universe, (matter and energy combined), there can never have been more and never have been less. All it can do is convert to different forms, like matter to energy or energy to matter, but the total amount of all of it has to remain the same.

The “closed system” is a scientific term that refers to a system or an “area” that has no outside influence, like the universe. Now, as believers we know, of course, that God does influence the universe, so many believers would consider the universe an “open system”, (one that does get outside influence), but for the atheist who says there is no God, the universe is all there is, so from their perspective and for the sake of conventional science, the universe would get no outside influence and would therefore be considered a “closed system”.

Back to the 1st Law of Thermodynamics. If it states that you can never have an increase or decrease of energy/matter, which means that matter/energy can not be created from nothingness, how did we get all the matter and energy in the universe? If science is all there is and there is no God, then the 1st Law of Thermodynamics reigns supreme and therefore it would be impossible to have matter and energy in existence right now. Simply put, when you open your eyes and see matter and experience energy, what you see is impossible according to the known Laws of science if, in fact, there is no God. Therefore, science itself says there must be a God.

Plain and simple, matter/energy can not come into existence. It is scientifically impossible, yet here we see everything around us, so how can that be? There are really only 3 possibilities. Option A: Everything came into existence by itself anyway, without the help of God, (even though science has proven that impossible). Option B: Everything in the universe has always existed for all of eternity, (which, by the way is also scientifically impossible as explained in the Top Ten Proofs for God's Existence CD due to something called the 2nd Law of Thermodynamics), or Option C: There must be a God, a Being greater than science, who created the Laws of science and has the ability to disobey them. Not only is a belief in God the only logical conclusion to draw, it's the only one scientifically possible because remember, if there is no God, the first two options are scientifically impossible according to the actual Laws of Physics.

Believe it or not, a 5 year old child could be an atheistic scientist's worst nightmare by merely asking him “where did everything come from if God didn't make it?” What that child is actually asking in scientific terms is “how do we have a violation of the 1st Law of Thermodynamics by the creation of energy and matter in the closed system of the universe if there is no Creator capable of doing that?”

Many times people who do not believe there is evidence of God have claimed that a faith in God is only a matter of faith and that it can not be proven scientifically. They say "does God exist ?....if so, prove it to me". When confronted with this, we must fully understand what it means to “prove” something. The fact is that none of us were there when the universe came into being, so technically, none of us can “prove” what happened. We can't “prove” God did it and the atheists can't “prove” everything came into being on it's own, so what we have to do is examine the evidence based on science to determine the most plausible explanation. For example, if I see a beautiful sand castle on the beach with intricate design, but no one there along with it, I can not “prove” someone made it, just as someone else can not “prove” the sand castle made itself from the wind, waves and sand randomly interacting with one another, so we have to determine what logic and reason tell us is the most plausible explanation, based on scientific evidence and examination. You can get over an hour of scientific, mathemetical and logical evidence for God in the <Top Ten Proofs for God's Existence.

This is just one simple example of scientific evidence for God's existence out of many that can help you defend the faith with evidence of God based on science and logic, not just faith.

 

As a matter of fact there are any number of big bang experiments that have so far consistently supported the big bang. The most recent are the results of the BICEPT2 experiment in antarctica.

Building and utilizing instrumentation to extend human perceptions is experimentation.

Building mathematical models of hypothesized or observed phenomena is a form of experimentation.

 

Again:

1. Why can matter/energy have not always existed? Why does it need to have been created?

2. Where is the author's evidence as to whether the universe is an open or closed system?

 

The thread title says "scientific evidence of God" not "scientific evidence of A god". I also noticed that you capitalized god suggesting you have one in mind.

Let's put aside the fact that your OP is one big logical fallacy. Let's say for the sake of the argument that because we don't know everything about the universe it means there must be a god.

Which god is it? Is it even something we would think of when thinking about god? What if it's a formless energy? What if it's Allah and everyone who denies him including Christians are going to hell?

What if it's something beyond all of our ability to understand but doesn't care about us at all or perhaps doesn't distinguish between the human form and the particles that make us?

You are simply getting to a point where science doesn't know for certain and saying, "if they don't know then I do and not only do I know that there is a god I know which one." Because if you don't know which one we are right back where we started which is to say the sum of our knowledge of god is the same whether one exists or not.

Now if you went through all this to say you're a deist then you went a bit over board because the only person I've seen argue with the deists here was a theist. However if you're a theist then you haven't gotten any closer to knowing God, you've just made a much longer logical fallacy then needed to present your argument.

 

I'm sorry, but even if your post were true, it does not present any proof of God. It tries to authenticate one claim by invalidating another. Just because I prove that the sky is not blue doesn't mean that it is green. It just means that it is not blue. At the worst, you attempt to debunk one baseless theory by proposing more of your own. That is one of the unfortunate hallmarks of religion as it tends to be practiced.

 

We disagree.

- - - Updated - - -

The author also capitalized God. Make a point.

- - - Updated - - -

Email the author.

 

YOU are the one presenting it as a source. It is up to YOU to defend the validity of your source.