Science and the arguments for/against the existence of God. Cosmology and Cosmogony

[shunyadragon]

Is it your view that 'revelation' provides some kind of nonscientific 'evidence' for the existence of God?

Yes. For question on the nonscientific evidence arguments for God other then physical scientific evidence, ask questions in this thread.

http://www.theologyweb.com/campus/sh...e-in-God/page6

[robrecht]

From the theist perspective, everything is not a result of natural causes. This would be a Metaphysical Naturalist view.

You are a theist, correct? Are you attempting to introduce a theistic distinction between the natural and the supernatural here? Do you think that a theist cannot view creation as a result of natural causes as you yourself affirm below:

My view God is simple based on the consistent scientific evidence that God used natural laws and methods to Create. There is no evidence of oddities in conflict with science or a supernatural explanation for Creation.

[seer]

No. Please cite me properly based on my posts. There is no actual physical evidence for the existence of god(s).

Science cannot, provide evidence,nor address questions of the existence nor non-existence of God.

What? What are you saying? Do you believe there is physical evidence for the existence of God? If so what would that be?

[shunyadragon]

What? What are you saying? Do you believe there is physical evidence for the existence of God? If so what would that be?

No I do not believe there is physical evidence for the existence of God. If there is at some time in the future physical falsifiable physical existence for the existence of God we will both no, but until that time we have none.

[shunyadragon]

You are a theist, correct? Are you attempting to introduce a theistic distinction between the natural and the supernatural here? Do you think that a theist cannot view creation as a result of natural causes as you yourself affirm below:

Not a distinction,, because I consider the claims of supernatural an illusion, or possibly the natural not understood by fallible humans.

A theist can view Creation as a result of natural causes, but understand that the natural causes are the medium of God's Creation.

[seer]

No I do not believe there is physical evidence for the existence of God. If there is at some time in the future physical falsifiable physical existence for the existence of God we will both no, but until that time we have none.

Ok, then why even speak of God? It violates Occam's razor, if there is no physical evidence for God and everything proceeds from a natural cause and effect chain. God is completely unnecessary.

[robrecht]

Not a distinction,, because I consider the claims of supernatural an illusion, or possibly the natural not understood by fallible humans.

A theist can view Creation as a result of natural causes, but understand that the natural causes are the medium of God's Creation.

So, contrary to what you said above ("From the theist perspective, everything is not a result of natural causes."), you now agree that for a theist everything can be a result of natural causes, correct?

[shunyadragon]

So, contrary to what you said above ("From the theist perspective, everything is not a result of natural causes [alone]."), you now agree that for a theist everything can be a result of natural causes, correct?

I was responding to seer, and be careful of how seer interprets posts and my attempts to clarify my position. Whether theist, deist, atheist, agnostic, or whatever, we all see nature through the same lens, our eyes, other senses and science. We see the result of natural causes. The theist, my view, sees natural causes as God's methods of Creation. I believe many distort what they see through an added cultural and religious lens, and reality becomes distorted.

[JimL]

This thread is not an argument for or against the existence of a 'Source' some call god(s). The purpose is to put the problems of traditional arguments based on science in perspective of the problems Judaism, Christianity and Islam over the Millennia.

Basically the arguments and evidence for the existence, nor the non-existence of a 'Source' some call god(s) does not enter the picture as the evidence and the human knowledge of science is concerned. The foundation of science is 'Methodological Naturalism' which is Neutral to the issue. If anything is evidence against the ancient worldviews of God. Specific other arguments I would use for the existence of God are not the subject of this thread.

Yes, we lack definitive knowledge prior to the one planck's time to base these Cosmogony arguments on the existence of God. Though we are not totally ignorant.

Yes, there are no oddities to overcome that would indicate that God Created physical existence any way other then Naturally. I consider any consideration of the supernatural in Creation a contradiction based on the evidence, and God Created Naturally.

Not sure what you mean when you say that God created naturally shunya. Do you mean to say that in your concept of God, God is not supernatural, that God is natural and that the creation is part of, and flows naturally from God, not created from out of nothing, or something akin to that? If so, for what reason do you define the eternal, that from out of which temporal things arise, as a God?

[shunyadragon]

Not sure what you mean when you say that God created naturally shunya. Do you mean to say that in your concept of God, God is not supernatural, that God is natural and that the creation is part of, and flows naturally from God, not created from out of nothing, or something akin to that?

As far as being Created naturally, God did not pull a rabbit universe out of his hat supernaturally to Create the nature of our existence and our universe. Or physical existence is Created simply as we see the processes occurring naturally.

In this view God is not supernatural. OK understanding. Creation in this view is not from absolute nothing. I will go into more detail when I cite the Baha'i cosmogony of God.

If so, for what reason do you define the eternal, that from out of which temporal things arise, as a God?

I am cautious at this point to define the eternal from the physical perspective, because the matrix of existence may be timeless and dimentionless, and the cosmology of science at present cannot conclusively determine the ultimate nature of the beginnings nor endings. This would reflect the Baha'i view there is an eternal matrix something like the Quantum zero state Matrix of the multiverse concept in science from which universes may arise as a Natural process of Creation, but this a cosmogony and not directly demonstrated in the cosmology of science in the present evidence, but parallels the present state of the science of cosmology.

[JimL]

As far as being Created naturally, God did not pull a rabbit universe out of his hat supernaturally to Create the nature of our existence and our universe. Or physical existence is Created simply as we see the processes occurring naturally.

We seem to be talking about two different things here shunya. That which is created naturally are those things that are born of an already existing natural world. Your argument seems to be that this is the way God creates. But if the natural world is eternal and self creates the temporal forms that arise in it according to natural laws then where, in your view, did God come into the picture. From your perspective, is the natural world itself eternal and self creating or is it temporal and created by a distinct and eternal God? Or are they both eternal but distinct one from the other with the eternal God somehow acting upon the other distinct and eternal entity?

In this view God is not supernatural. OK understanding. Creation in this view is not from absolute nothing. I will go into more detail when I cite the Baha'i cosmogony of God.

Well if creation is not from absolute nothing then it either flows from and is part of what you call God, or it is itself eternal, no? Do you have a third option?

I am cautious at this point to define the eternal from the physical perspective, because the matrix of existence may be timeless and dimentionless, and the cosmology of science at present cannot conclusively determine the ultimate nature of the beginnings nor endings. This would reflect the Baha'i view there is an eternal matrix something like the Quantum zero state Matrix of the multiverse concept in science from which universes may arise as a Natural process of Creation, but this a cosmogony and not directly demonstrated in the cosmology of science in the present evidence, but parallels the present state of the science of cosmology.

I'm trying to understand, so correct me if i'm wrong, but are you saying that The Baha'i perspective is that of an eternally existing Cosmos as well as that of an eternally existing God, the two being distinct one from the other, the former being a sort of eternal plaything for the latter to do with as he will?

[seer]

We seem to be talking about two different things here shunya. That which is created naturally are those things that are born of an already existing natural world. Your argument seems to be that this is the way God creates. But if the natural world is eternal and self creates the temporal forms that arise in it according to natural laws then where, in your view, did God come into the picture. From your perspective, is the natural world itself eternal and self creating or is it temporal and created by a distinct and eternal God? Or are they both eternal but distinct one from the other with the eternal God somehow acting upon the other distinct and eternal entity?

Well if creation is not from absolute nothing then it either flows from and is part of what you call God, or it is itself eternal, no? Do you have a third option?



I'm trying to understand, so correct me if i'm wrong, but are you saying that The Baha'i perspective is that of an eternally existing Cosmos as well as that of an eternally existing God, the two being distinct one from the other, the former being a sort of eternal plaything for the latter to do with as he will?

Good luck getting straight answers Jim.

[shunyadragon]

Ok, then why even speak of God? It violates Occam's razor, if there is no physical evidence for God and everything proceeds from a natural cause and effect chain. God is completely unnecessary.

Again, you need to read my posts and respond appropriately.

[seer]

Again, you need to read my posts and respond appropriately.

Shuny, it is not me, it is you that has the problem of being vague. As Jim L has rightly pointed out.

[shunyadragon]

We seem to be talking about two different things here shunya. That which is created naturally are those things that are born of an already existing natural world. Your argument seems to be that this is the way God creates. But if the natural world is eternal and self creates the temporal forms that arise in it according to natural laws then where, in your view, did God come into the picture. From your perspective, is the natural world itself eternal and self creating or is it temporal and created by a distinct and eternal God? Or are they both eternal but distinct one from the other with the eternal God somehow acting upon the other distinct and eternal entity?

I never said that nature self creates. That is your line from philosophical naturalism. God comes into the picture, because God Creates. In my view the nature of our physical existence and Natural Law simply reflects God's natural methods of Creation

Well if creation is not from absolute nothing then it either flows from and is part of what you call God, or it is itself eternal, no? Do you have a third option?

Actually my Cosmogony of the Baha'i Faith, God and Creation was not the topic of the thread. Please reread the initial essay. The topic of the thread was the issue of Cosmogony and Cosmology and whether science may be used in and of itself to provide a basis for logical arguments for God. If you wish to address the Baha'i view of God, Creation, and Cosmogony, please go to my thread in Comparative Religions

I'm trying to understand, so correct me if i'm wrong, but are you saying that The Baha'i perspective is that of an eternally existing Cosmos as well as that of an eternally existing God, the two being distinct one from the other, the former being a sort of eternal plaything for the latter to do with as he will?

I will answer the Baha'i perspective in the appropriate thread.