Proof of God For Science Types

[SetFree]

This verse in Hebrews 11 proves God's existence simply by His creation...

Heb 11:3
3 Through faith we understand that the worlds were framed by the word of God, so that things which are seen were not made of things which do appear.
KJV

Science type phrases:
"so that things which are seen"
"were not made of things which do appear"

One of the basic scientific laws of physics is that material matter can neither be created nor destroyed, but only change its state (solid, liquid, vapor, gas).

That also means that material matter cannot... create nor destroy itself. Some try to theorize that it can (like the Big Bang theory), but they haven't any solid evidence.

The above Hebrews 11 verse is declaring these scientific facts about material matter, that just by its existence, and that it cannot be created nor destroyed and only changes its form, that proves that matter did not create itself. This applies to the whole known universe of material matter.

This also means, something outside... of the realm of material matter had to be its creator. Know what that suggests?

In John 4, he said that "God is a Spirit...". God's Word teaches us about another dimension of existence of the heavenly, where God and the angels dwell, behind a veil we cannot see (unless God allows us to see it like He did with Isaiah in Isaiah 6).

This material existence we see around us today manifested from God's Spirit. God spoke, and His material creation came into existence. So only He... can create or destroy material matter. We cannot, not even with nuclear power.

This single Hebrews 11 verse reveals God The Creator, just by the proof before our eyes of His material creation. Matter did not create itself, so that is how we know the material dimension didn't do it, and that something outside the material had to be the Author, and that was our Heavenly Father and His Son Jesus Christ, by The Spirit.

 

[tango]

Serious question.... if someone were to post something more or less the same but substituting Allah, Vishnu, Krishna or some other deity, wouldn't something like this work just as well? You can use the creation of something from nothing to infer the existence of some kind of supernatural creator, eternal deity etc but how does the fact that things exist prove that one god is real and the others are fake?

 

[SetFree]

Serious question.... if someone were to post something more or less the same but substituting Allah, Vishnu, Krishna or some other deity, wouldn't something like this work just as well? You can use the creation of something from nothing to infer the existence of some kind of supernatural creator, eternal deity etc but how does the fact that things exist prove that one god is real and the others are fake?

Do you believe in those other gods then?

Exactly who do... you believe in? not talking about possibilities.

 

[tango]

Do you believe in those other gods then?

Exactly who do... you believe in? not talking about possibilities.

It's not a matter of what I believe, it's a matter of saying something is scientific proof when it's anything but.

If you take an argument you're presenting as "proof", presumably it's intended for people who don't already believe. The people who already believe don't need a stranger on the internet to "prove" what they already believe. If you take something like this to people who don't believe they'll laugh at it, because it doesn't really prove anything.

 

[SetFree]

It's not a matter of what I believe, it's a matter of saying something is scientific proof when it's anything but.

If you take an argument you're presenting as "proof", presumably it's intended for people who don't already believe. The people who already believe don't need a stranger on the internet to "prove" what they already believe. If you take something like this to people who don't believe they'll laugh at it, because it doesn't really prove anything.

Well yes, it is... a matter of what you believe, because you checked your profile box saying you are a Christian.

And that means to believe that God came in the flesh as Jesus of Nazareth and died on the cross and raised from the dead, for the remission of sins for those who believe. None other did that, not Krishna, not Buddha, not Zoroaster, not Vishnu, not Mohammed, nor any other, nor any other claimed "deity". There is only one God, and He manifests in Three Persons of God The Father, God The Son, and God The Holy Spirit, and these 3 are One.

 

[tango]

Well yes, it is... a matter of what you believe, because you checked your profile box saying you are a Christian.

And that means to believe that God came in the flesh as Jesus of Nazareth and died on the cross and raised from the dead, for the remission of sins for those who believe. None other did that, not Krishna, not Buddha, not Zoroaster, not Vishnu, not Mohammed, nor any other, nor any other claimed "deity". There is only one God, and He manifests in Three Persons of God The Father, God The Son, and God The Holy Spirit, and these 3 are One.

Seriously, do you actually have an argument here?

You present something as if it were proof of God and then, when challenged, resort to all manner of irrelevant sidetracks rather than offering anything to support the rather lame argument you presented in the first place.

What you're offering here is circular reasoning, which helps nobody. Those who believe don't need to be convinced and those who do not believe aren't going to be convinced by your rather curious blend of statements of faith and frankly rather weak attempts to tie faith to science.

What I believe has nothing to do with the merit or otherwise of your original post.

 

[SetFree]

Seriously, do you actually have an argument here?

Apparently not with someone behaving like you are in wanting to just argue for the sake of it.

 

[Josiah]

As one with a Ph.D. in physics..... and a traditional Christian.


1. I assure you, no physicist would be at all impressed by the OP.

2. "Proof" is a word physicists like to use but quickly admit it means next to nothing. In reality, "proof" is simply a theory/opinion that seems to be confirmed by what we observe (especially by repeatable laboratory results), or the other way around. And likely widely accepted AT THE TIME. We don't use "Truth" in the philosophical sense since what is "true" today is quite possibly going to be false tomorrow (science evolves). On their better days, scientists love to be surprised, even proven wrong.

3. There are many misconceptions of "The Big Bang." It ain't nearly as simple has many convey. Nor is there some sense that no "reality" existed before it (indeed, that's almost universally rejected). OUR reality likely didn't exist before that (indeed, it didn't fully in the early phases of the Big Bang itself) but that has no relevance to ANY reality existing before then. Nor it is assumed the Big Bang began the only reality (indeed, there may be countless realities - as real as ours - currently existing; it's just we are in THIS one and thus have a hard time knowing of others). It also needs to be noted that there is not a consensus that The Big Bang was the beginning.... it may have been a restart (an early and once largely abandoned theory suddenly put back on the burner by Dr. Penrose), an endless and eternal "recycling." It's interesting that this is a Hindu teaching, that the universe is one of death and rebirth, the universe dying and thus rising. But most scientists, I think, in light of string theory and other concepts of theoretical physics, hold that The Big Bang was a "beginning" although perhaps to only one universe in a multiverse; OUR reality had a point in space/time in which it came into existence (if there ever will be a "end" is a whole other issue).

4. SOMETHING likely caused the Big Bang. It was not by fiat. Physicists have a hard time abandoning cause/effect. It's just that it MAY be that that "something" is not of our reality (not physics) and thus not knowable by us in THIS reality... then again, it may well be that it can be known (and a bunch of physicists are working on just that). There's a possibility that The Big Bang was just sort of like a phase shift from some other reality, more an accident than anything. Who knows. We may never know. It's just that some things suggest there was a starting point - in time and space (both creations of the Big Bang) - to this Reality. Some math and laborative evidence makes the process of The Big Bang a bit known but at some point, math and physics (products of the Big Bang) become irrelevant because, well, in a sense, they didn't exist. And we'll likely never be able to reproduce things in a lab to "prove" anything. Peering behind the curtain is something we likely can't do.



Now, as a Christian, all this actually seems to affirm my faith. I'm one (just one) physicist who holds that physics of the last century or so actually makes God, Heaven, Hell, Angels, etc. MORE likely (other dimensions/phases/universes) although admittedly it also makes EVERY possibility more likely; it just means "could be" can be applied to just about anything. And YES, it's easy for me to believe that GOD is that Reality that brought about The Big Bang but the Big Bang in no way proves that (or even suggests that).

Now: I no longer work in science (I'm in business now) and I passionately avoid mixing faith and science at forums of either. So, the above is more than I'd actually like to express.




.

 

[SetFree]

As one with a Ph.D. in physics..... and a traditional Christian.


1. I assure you, no physicist would be at all impressed by the OP.

2. "Proof" is a word physicists like to use but quickly admit it means next to nothing. In reality, "proof" is simply a theory/opinion that seems to be confirmed by what we observe (especially by repeatable laboratory results), or the other way around. And likely widely accepted AT THE TIME. We don't use "Truth" in the philosophical sense since what is "true" today is quite possibly going to be false tomorrow (science evolves). On their better days, scientists love to be surprised, even proven wrong.

3. There are many misconceptions of "The Big Bang." It ain't nearly as simple has many convey. Nor is there some sense that no "reality" existed before it (indeed, that's almost universally rejected). OUR reality likely didn't exist before that (indeed, it didn't fully in the early phases of the Big Bang itself) but that has no relevance to ANY reality existing before then. Nor it is assumed the Big Bang began the only reality (indeed, there may be countless realities - as real as ours - currently existing; it's just we are in THIS one and thus have a hard time knowing of others). It also needs to be noted that there is not a consensus that The Big Bang was the beginning.... it may have been a restart (an early and once largely abandoned theory suddenly put back on the burner by Dr. Penrose), an endless and eternal "recycling." It's interesting that this is a Hindu teaching, that the universe is one of death and rebirth, the universe dying and thus rising. But most scientists, I think, in light of string theory and other concepts of theoretical physics, hold that The Big Bang was a "beginning" although perhaps to only one universe in a multiverse; OUR reality had a point in space/time in which it came into existence (if there ever will be a "end" is a whole other issue).

4. SOMETHING likely caused the Big Bang. It was not by fiat. Physicists have a hard time abandoning cause/effect. It's just that it MAY be that that "something" is not of our reality (not physics) and thus not knowable by us in THIS reality... then again, it may well be that it can be known (and a bunch of physicists are working on just that). There's a possibility that The Big Bang was just sort of like a phase shift from some other reality, more an accident than anything. Who knows. We may never know. It's just that some things suggest there was a starting point - in time and space (both creations of the Big Bang) - to this Reality. Some math and laborative evidence makes the process of The Big Bang a bit known but at some point, math and physics (products of the Big Bang) become irrelevant because, well, in a sense, they didn't exist. And we'll likely never be able to reproduce things in a lab to "prove" anything. Peering behind the curtain is something we likely can't do.



Now, as a Christian, all this actually seems to affirm my faith. I'm one (just one) physicist who holds that physics of the last century or so actually makes God, Heaven, Hell, Angels, etc. MORE likely (other dimensions/phases/universes) although admittedly it also makes EVERY possibility more likely; it just means "could be" can be applied to just about anything. And YES, it's easy for me to believe that GOD is that Reality that brought about The Big Bang but the Big Bang in no way proves that (or even suggests that).

Now: I no longer work in science (I'm in business now) and I passionately avoid mixing faith and science at forums of either. So, the above is more than I'd actually like to express.

I disagree with several of the points you try to make in the name of secular science.

The Hebrews 11:3 verse is stating a 'proof', not me. I am only presenting... what that Scripture says.

Heb 11:3
3 Through faith we understand that the worlds were framed by the word of God, so that things which are seen were not made of things which do appear.
KJV

And the evidence that verse gives is that material matter ("things which are seen"), did not create itself, ("were not made of things which do appear").

That verse automatically... points to GOD as Spirit to be The Creator of material matter, and that is not... my personal idea. It is what that verse is revealing.

It also means that if... the Big Bang idea actually happened, it had to happen from GOD's Spirit by FIAT (i.e., by God's decree), which idea is also written in His Word in that same... verse with, "...the worlds were framed by the word of God,...".

God's Word contains science also, and there is a difference between man's pseudo-science (like Darwinism) and true science. God's Word will always agree with true science. But for someone who claims to be a Christian, which to me means a Bible believer, and they instead reject simple Scripture like the Hebrews 11:3 verse above in favor of man's secularist theory, that is something hard for me to understand.

 

[Albion]

This verse in Hebrews 11 proves God's existence simply by His creation...

Heb 11:3
3 Through faith we understand that the worlds were framed by the word of God, so that things which are seen were not made of things which do appear.
KJV

Correction: this verse might prove the existence of God for people who believe the Bible to be divine revelation and verbally inspired, which of course requires them first to believe that there is a God, and these people don't need this particular verse in order to come to that conclusion anyway. For other people, it proves nothing about the origin of the universe.

The above Hebrews 11 verse is declaring these scientific facts about material matter, that just by its existence, and that it cannot be created nor destroyed and only changes its form, that proves that matter did not create itself.

On the contrary, it might instruct Bible believers that matter ONCE IT IS IN EXISTENCE "only changes its form."

The verse doesn't prove anything in a scientific way about what it was that caused the material to come into existence in the first place.

 

[Josiah]

I disagree with several of the points you try to make

Then state your credentials as a scientist and give your evidence that the points are wrong.

The Hebrews 11:3 verse is stating a 'proof', not me. I am only presenting... what that Scripture says.

It seems you didn't bother to read the verse you referenced. Hebrews 11:3 says "BY FAITH" not "BY SCIENTIFIC PROOF." If you are going to give a Scripture, take the time to read what it says.

IF you were agreeing with the text, that BY FAITH we hold that the universe did not spring from what we can see - you'd get little argument (even from most physicists). But you insist the verse offers PROOF for scientists. It does not.

And the evidence that verse gives is that material matter ("things which are seen"), did not create itself, ("were not made of things which do appear").

"The Big Bang" which you reference does not say that what is seen comes from what is seen. You clearly have a very inaccurate idea of "The Big Bang."

That verse automatically... points to GOD as Spirit to be The Creator of material matter, and that is not... my personal idea. It is what that verse is revealing.

Okay.... but it says we "understand" that BY FAITH, not by science, not by proof, not by evidence.

for someone who claims to be a Christian, which to me means a Bible believer, and they instead reject simple Scripture like the Hebrews 11:3 verse above in favor of man's secularist theory, that is something hard for me to understand.

Again, it seems you didn't bother to read the verse. It does not say "by scientific proof" it says by faith.

"The Big Bang" which you reference but evidently know little about, does NOT say that there is no God or that some Supernatural had nothing to do with it. As I specifically stated in post #8, physicists don't even theorize HOW this all came about or WHAT may have (in some sense) "existed" before that point in time and space. Now, I'd agree (and I did in post 8) that physists like cause/effect and hesitate to dismiss such but they do not generally regard such as impossible. And I'd agree that physicists don't put Supernatural into their theories. This is for one very, very simply and obvious reason: Physicists study physics, the "natural", not the SUPERnatural. Asking a Physicists to discuss God is a bit like asking a historian to discuss how the planets formed in our solar systems - it's just not his field, it's outside his "box." I know MANY physicists - with Ph.D.'s - and RARE is the atheist. On their best days, they stick to their field, their discipline, their "box" which is PHYSICS. "The Big Bang" simply holds that's when PHYSICS began (well, or was recycled).

As I posted in #8, I actually find "The Big Bang" and other modern theoretical concepts of physics, makes God MORE credible. Physics of the past century or so is considerably MORE open to reality/realities OUTSIDE or ABOVE physics (the Supernatural). It's just it's ALSO more open to just about anything and everything!



I cringe when a Christian who clearly knows next to nothing about science pontificates on such. And when a scientist who clearly knows next to nothing about Christianity pontificates on such. It harms both.




.

 

[SetFree]

Then state your credentials as a scientist and give your evidence that the points are wrong.






It seems you didn't bother to read the verse you referenced. Hebrews 11:3 says "BY FAITH" not "BY SCIENTIFIC PROOF." If you are going to give a Scripture, take the time to read what it says.

IF you were agreeing with the text, that BY FAITH we hold that the universe did not spring from what we can see - you'd get little argument (even from most physicists). But you insist the verse offers PROOF for scientists. It does not.





"The Big Bang" which you reference does not say that what is seen comes from what is seen. You clearly have a very inaccurate idea of "The Big Bang."







Okay.... but it says we "understand" that BY FAITH, not by science, not by proof, not by evidence.







Again, it seems you didn't bother to read the verse. It does not say "by scientific proof" it says by faith.

"The Big Bang" which you reference but evidently know little about, does NOT say that there is no God or that some Supernatural had nothing to do with it. As I specifically stated in post #8, physicists don't even theorize HOW this all came about or WHAT may have (in some sense) "existed" before that point in time and space. Now, I'd agree (and I did in post 8) that physists like cause/effect and hesitate to dismiss such but they do not generally regard such as impossible. And I'd agree that physicists don't put Supernatural into their theories. This is for one very, very simply and obvious reason: Physicists study physics, the "natural", not the SUPERnatural. Asking a Physicists to discuss God is a bit like asking a historian to discuss how the planets formed in our solar systems - it's just not his field, it's outside his "box." I know MANY physicists - with Ph.D.'s - and RARE is the atheist. On their best days, they stick to their field, their discipline, their "box" which is PHYSICS. "The Big Bang" simply holds that's when PHYSICS began (well, or was recycled).

As I posted in #8, I actually find "The Big Bang" and other modern theoretical concepts of physics, makes God MORE credible. Physics of the past century or so is considerably MORE open to reality/realities OUTSIDE or ABOVE physics (the Supernatural). It's just it's ALSO more open to just about anything and everything!



I cringe when a Christian who clearly knows next to nothing about science pontificates on such. And when a scientist who clearly knows next to nothing about Christianity pontificates on such. It harms both.




.

I don't have to state my credentials to you, nor to anyone else. My avatar here says enough, I am a Christian, and I am a Bible believer.

It is the credentials of the author of that Hebrews 11:3 verse that you are questioning, not me! I'm not on your silly trial.

The matter of discussion is that you apparently REJECT that Hebrews 11:3 verse as written, while you come here to a Christian forum and claim to be a Christian that believes The Bible.

 

[SetFree]

Brethren, one of the reasons why I posted this thread showing what that Hebrews 11:3 verse reveals as written, is to show how God's Word is so profound that it surpasses men's scientific reasoning which limits itself to only what can be known in the material world. This confirms that those in Christ do not have to be a scientist in order to understand God's profound Truths that span way beyond the study of the material universe.

Like Lord Jesus said...

John 3:6-12
6 That which is born of the flesh is flesh; and that which is born of the Spirit is spirit.

7 Marvel not that I said unto thee, Ye must be born again.

8 The wind bloweth where it listeth, and thou hearest the sound thereof, but canst not tell whence it cometh, and whither it goeth: so is every one that is born of the Spirit.

9 Nicodemus answered and said unto Him, "How can these things be?"

10 Jesus answered and said unto him, "Art thou a master of Israel, and knowest not these things?

11 Verily, verily, I say unto thee, We speak that we do know, and testify that we have seen; and ye receive not our witness.

12 If I have told you earthly things, and ye believe not, how shall ye believe, if I tell you of heavenly things?"
KJV

 

[Albion]

I don't have to state my credentials to you, nor to anyone else.

True. We, for our part, will treat your argument as being merely one ordinary person's musings, then. Your replies are still interesting as speculation, but your conclusion was not based on science although you tried to say it was. Unfortunately, your question to the forum was supposed to deal with "Science Types."

My avatar here says enough, I am a Christian, and I am a Bible believer.

...but it doesn't say that you are a Christian and a scientist. Yet you attempted to show that the verse from Hebrews was not only believable to Christians but that it also proved something to scientists using the tools of science!

The matter of discussion is that you apparently REJECT that Hebrews 11:3 verse as written,...

There is no basis whatsoever for you to make this accusation.

 

[Josiah]

your conclusion was not based on science although you tried to say it was. Unfortunately, your question to the forum was supposed to deal with "Science Types."

@SetFree


Exactly, Albion!

The opening poster TRIES to make a scientific argument, to "science types" only revealing he knows little about the subject (which is why he refused to give his scientific credentials); to anyone who knows anything about Science and "The Big Bang" it's clear he knows not of which he speaks.

And all this would have been entirely avoided IF he had read the verse he references: it says NOTHING about science or scientific evidence or proof or about "The Big Bang." It says "we" (Christians) embrace God as Creator BY FAITH.

And it also may have been avoided if he had a clue about science and "The Big Bang." As I noted, theoretical physics of the past century or so actually makes the SUPERnatural more (not less) credible...but it remains outside physics since physics deals with the natural not the supernatural. Physics doesn't "go there" since all its tools are within physics and thus the natural.


I cringe when a Christian who clearly knows next to nothing about science pontificates on such. And when a scientist who clearly knows next to nothing about Christianity pontificates on such. It harms both.

There is no basis whatsoever for you to make this accusation.

The only one here who seems to disagree with Hebrews 11:3 is the opening poster, who seems to have not read the verse. BY FAITH we accept that God is the Creator. Not by science since science does not and cannot address the issue. "The Big Bang" which he referenced but clearly knows little about says NOTHING about God - one way or the other. It's science (about nature - which likely didn't exist before that) NOT religion (about the SUPERnatural). "The Big Bang" does not preclude the possibility of the SUPERnatural being involved but nor does it depend on such. It's hard for physics to even theorize before physics existed. Where it doesn't exist (or may not), it likely doesn't apply - but that doesn't prove therefore God does.


I fully (and passionately) accept that God is the Creator. Everyone responding to the OP does. We just disagree that we understand this by science and not by faith; we ACCEPT Hebrews 11:3 whereas the opening poster seems to have ignored the verse.


See post # 8....


Blessings to you!


- Josiah



.

 

[tango]

Apparently not with someone behaving like you are in wanting to just argue for the sake of it.

Seriously? You post drivel like your opening post and expect people to simply sit back in awe of your apparently undisputed brilliance?

If all you want is fawning admiration you'd be better off talking to your mama than posting on a public forum where - horror - people might notice your arguments are so weak they practically rebut themselves.

 

[SetFree]

Another amazing thing if the true Bible student will notice, is how many science types keep wrongly treating my coverage of the Hebrews 11:3 verse like its supposed to be some scientific theory! It's not, but it is TRUE SCIENCE, just not man's version of science, but God's. Just like the atheist when asked how did the universe come about, they refuse to consider The Creator beyond the dimension of material matter. That's because man's science has to remain locked to this material world, and is completely ignorant of the dimension of Spirit.

 

[Josiah]

Another amazing thing if the true Bible student will notice, is how many science types keep wrongly treating my coverage of the Hebrews 11:3 verse like its supposed to be some scientific theory! It's not, but it is TRUE SCIENCE, just not man's version of science, but God's. Just like the atheist when asked how did the universe come about, they refuse to consider The Creator beyond the dimension of material matter. That's because man's science has to remain locked to this material world, and is completely ignorant of the dimension of Spirit.

@SetFree


Absurd.

YOU are the one who framed the discussion as SCIENCE rather than faith.

YOU are the one who ignored that Hebrews 11:3 says we acknowledge God as Creator BY FAITH (it says nothing about science).

YOU are the one who demanded we ignore the issue of faith and replace it with the issue of science

YOU are the one who displayed an amazing ignorance of science.

YOU are the one who ignored everything posted to you.

EVERYONE here believes that God is the Creator, that's never been disputed.

NO ONE in this discussion is an atheist or denies God's special Creation.


See post 15.



.

 

[tango]

It might also be worth considering that the people who don't believe that "in the beginning God created the heavens and the earth" are unlikely to be wowed by much that comes later on in the same book.

 

[SetFree]

It might also be worth considering that the people who don't believe that "in the beginning God created the heavens and the earth" are unlikely to be wowed by much that comes later on in the same book.

Believers are not concerned with those who refuse to believe that in the beginning God created the heavens and the earth.