An argument for the existence of God

Originally posted by Nemesio
Originally posted by The Chess Express
E=mc^2 is scientific, not metaphysic. Again, to assume that God has to abide by the laws of science that he created may be assuming too much.

You have misunderstood.

E=mc^2 is a scientific principle which indicates that the universe
has always existed. It says nothing about God.

But what it [i]doe on is no more an argument for God then it is for a
spontaneous generation of matter.

Nemesio

[/i]E=mc^2 is a scientific principle which indicates that the universe
has always existed. It says nothing about God. But what it does say is that matter-energy cannot be created
nor destroyed.

It also raises the questions that I have listed.

The second we talk about the moment that matter comes into
existence, we have departed science. We then may ask metaphysical
questions.

If the scientific explanation for matter is illogical to some degree, then is it not conceivable that in the future it may be revised? Science is constantly revising itself, and E=mc2 doesn’t explain the questions raised in this thread.

If you ask, 'Where did the matter that composes the universe come
from,' then I may equally ask, 'Where did God come from?'

Both questions have equally unsatisfactory answers;

I agree that both questions have equally unsatisfactory answers. That is why it is necessary to continue to ask these questions and come up with new solutions. This is easier to do if one keeps an open mind.

Originally posted by The Chess Express
The scientists and skeptics on this site have tried to use science to show that there is no God, but can science actually show that there is a God?

1. Can science show that there was a so called beginning?

Most of us are willing to accept that we exist, but the question is were we deliberately created, or are we a chance accident? Atheists ar ...[text shortened]... gent creator. The anthropic principle is one of the ways that science has tried to justify this.

The aging process of the cosmos is referred to by astronomers as “heat death.”

I've heard that term refer to the state the universe would be in after a great deal of time, when it reaches a state of maximum entropy. It's a state, not a process - at least as I've heard and understood it.

A universe that cycles through expanding and collapsing would not exist forever because it would loose heat and light through every cycle.

What? Where does it lose that energy to? Where did you get this idea?

Typically the atheists claim that “matter is not created, but it is self-existing.” For this statement to be true, it is necessary for matter to have been generated out of nothing. If we assume that matter had a beginning and that it wasn’t deliberately created by a supreme intelligence, it would have had to appear out of nothing and by accident.

No; matter could have always existed, even if it were in the form of a singularity. The idea of the singularity only describes one state of the universe in the past; it's not a description of the beginning of the universe, but rather, the beginning of the state of the universe in which the curvature of time-space are finite. At least, that's how I understand it. So, technically this is incorrect:

This point is referred to as a singularity. According to science this would be the beginning.

It is therefore logical to assume that one day science and religion will merge and support each other.

Only if you assume that scripture is correct. If we're arguing for the existence of God, this is not an assumption we should be making.

The still controversial “anthropic principle” attempts to scientifically explain that the universe must have been designed.

No it doesn't.

the anthropic principle in its most basic form states the truism that any valid theory of the universe must be consistent with our existence as carbon-based human beings at this particular time and place in the universe. In other words, "If something must be true for us, as humans, to exist; then it is true simply because we exist."

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Anthropic_principle

Originally posted by The Chess Express
I believe that you’re a good man and it’s easy for good people to say that there should be no hell. What that means though is that all the truly evil people in this world should be sent to Heaven when they die. Hitler should have gone to Heaven right after he committed suicide. Evil has consequences.

No, there are an infinite number of other possibilities besides Heaven and Hell.

Originally posted by Nemesio
Originally posted by The Chess Express
[b]E=mc^2 is scientific, not metaphysic. Again, to assume that God has to abide by the laws of science that he created may be assuming too much.

You have misunderstood.

E=mc^2 is a scientific principle which indicates that the universe
has always existed. It says nothing about God.

But what it s no more an argument for God then it is for a
spontaneous generation of matter.

Nemesio[/b]

E = mc^2 simply says matter and energy can be interconverted; that in fact they are the same thing. It doesn't say anything about them always having existed.

Originally posted by AThousandYoung
No, there are an infinite number of other possibilities besides Heaven and Hell.

If you argue for the existence of hell, then you accept Heaven as well. What are the infinite other possibilities? My response was taken in context with Scott’s post.

Originally posted by AThousandYoung
[b]The aging process of the cosmos is referred to by astronomers as “heat death.”

I've heard that term refer to the state the universe would be in after a great deal of time, when it reaches a state of maximum entropy. It's a state, not a process - at least as I've heard and understood it.

A universe that cycles through expanding and co ...[text shortened]... y because we exist."[/i]

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Anthropic_principle[/b]

Good post. The most sensible one I’ve seen in this thread. I’ll see what I can find out.

Originally posted by The Chess Express
[b]CE, you cannot prove the existance of god, and without that, the hypothesis that you present that god has or can transcend physical laws is moot.

So far science has given us mostly theories. They’re called theories because they haven’t been proven yet.

A scientist would never even come up with such a hypothesis as god without proof ...[text shortened]... hought up a way to build them. If all we have are facts then their is nothing left to debate. 🙂

1) A scientific theory is an idea that was been repeatedly tested and that cannot be disproven! They are the most fundamental and all encompassing ideas that we have about the world. Science doesn't go around proving things - that's impossible - you can't prove something will never happen. It only ever give probabilities of an idea being wrong. No-one have ever disproven evolution, gravity or relativity.

2) A scientist can be a scientist in spite of their religion, but not because of their religion. God is a belief (a viewpoint held in the absence of proof) - science doesn't work that way. Science works on facts, not beliefs.

3) I come to the debate able to present facts, figures and ideas. It is this that stops the debate simply being two people standing there going - 'my idea is better than yours'. You need facts - they are the ammunition with which we execute our protagonists.

Don't make this a science v religion thing, we can debase all your arguments, and I will. Tomorrow, when I'm less tired.

"A universe that cycles through expanding and collapsing would not exist forever because it would loose heat and light through every cycle.

What? Where does it lose that energy to? Where did you get this idea?"

ATY, classic! The universe cannot 'lose energy' - it's a closed system. The only true closed system, in fact. The universe is everything that does or has ever existed. What would it lose heat too?

Google 'second law of thermodynamics'. You find out that an increase in entropy only means that all the energy in the universe will basically even itself out.

Creationist, explain the 3 degree kelvin shift that the universe has against absolute zero. The 'universal background radiation'. If it's not the residual heat from the big bang, what is it? We've got maths to back our ideas up, and I'll require to see yours to prove your position.

Originally posted by AThousandYoung
E = mc^2 simply says matter and energy can be interconverted; that in fact they are the same thing. It doesn't say anything about them always having existed.

It does imply no 'third state' though.

Originally posted by scottishinnz
It does imply no 'third state' though.

I don't think that's true. While E = mc^2, E and mc^2 could also equal some unknown U which is neither matter nor energy.

Originally posted by AThousandYoung
I don't think that's true. While E = mc^2, E and mc^2 could also equal some unknown U which is neither matter nor energy.

Perhaps, however that would suggest the sometimes E does not equal mc2, it equals U instead..... Maybe U is just really unlikely....

Originally posted by The Chess Express
If you argue for the existence of hell, then you accept Heaven as well. What are the infinite other possibilities? My response was taken in context with Scott’s post.

If you argue for the existence of hell, then you accept Heaven as well.

Not true. What if everyone went to Hell after death and there was no Heaven?

What are the infinite other possibilities?

The person simply ceasing to exist. Or an afterlife with a complete lack of anything but conciousness with nothing to see, nothing to do, and no pleasure or pain. Or a situation in which the person cycles between tremendous misery and tremendous ecstacy. Or Hades. Or Valhalla. Or Nirvana. Or a situation where you feel great pleasure and great pain at the same time. Or infinite reincarnation. Etc.

My response was taken in context with Scott’s post.

Scott referred to loving a God who

...apparently sends millions to hell every day who do not believe in him.

There was an implication that he did not approve of this activity on God's part. Now, if Scott disapproves, he might find any of the infinite other possibilities besides Heaven and Hell more reasonable for "evil people".

Originally posted by scottishinnz
Perhaps, however that would suggest the sometimes E does not equal mc2, it equals U instead..... Maybe U is just really unlikely....

No, it suggests all three are equivalent. e = mc^2 = U, not e = mc^2 OR e = U.

Originally posted by Coletti
It may be the case that God does not love STANG.

Its a lot more likely that such a god doesn't give a rats arse about
us. There have been many extinctions in the earths past caused
by a lot of differant phenomena so any day a ten mile wide asteroid
could come crashing down just like it did 65 million years ago, 'god'
didn't stop that one, not too likely it would stop the next one,
no matter how hard people try to believe. You can believe all you
want, a ten mile wide asteroid with our name on it is not going to be
stopped unless WE stop it, which maybe now we can, through that
science you seem to hate so much.

Originally posted by scottishinnz
1) A scientific theory is an idea that was been repeatedly tested and that cannot be disproven! ...

You mean has not been disproven. If it can not be disproven, it's not very useful as science. Falsification is the heart of the scientific method.