Does Science Suggest the Existence of God?

[alang1216]

the stupid notion that there is a Creator of the Creator.

Why stupid? Isn't the 'evidence' the same as for your Creator? Since everything that exists must have a first cause...

 

[Ringtone]

Let's move on to the birth narratives then. Here's a question for you, why was Jesus born of a virgin?

The short answer: God the Father willed it so to fulfill prophecy, to establish Jesus’ divine origin, and to confirm Christ’s sinless humanity for starters. IMO those are the chief reasons.

 

[Ringtone]

Why stupid? Isn't the 'evidence' the same as for your Creator? Since everything that exists must have a first cause...

Not everything that exists has a cause. How could that be?

 

[Ringtone]

You poor, dear. You’re hoping to sidestep and obfuscate in regard to your earlier claim: “We have yet to observe a star being born”.

Yet, how strange that scientists disagree. What is interesting is that the timeframes and distances involved in the observations made, present a real kerfuffle for you Henry Morris groupies. The notion of a 6,000 year old planet tends to conflict with objects hundreds of thousands of light years away. We seem to be on the horns of a dilemma with the religioners claiming timeframes that conflict with modern methods of measuring distance across space.

What would William Lane Craig do?

Hollie, you poor dear,

One last post on this matter, as your dissembling has now been narrowed down to a mere expression in a post that, unlike the other posts, does not emphatically include the predicate in real time from which I was obviously speaking. It cannot be otherwise. But, then, that post was not addressed you, but to alang who does grasp the actualities of astronomical distances relative to the observations of stellar objects. I know this from his posts of months ago. I was just reminding him to recall what he already knows. It is axiomatically understood by me, alang and others that the observation of stellar objects can never be in real time. They can only be made from distances of light years. Scientists do not disagree with me, Hollie, you drooling 'tard. It is understood by us that when we talk about observing stellar objects, we do not mean in real time.

Check mate. Your dissembling has nowhere else to go. You lose, narcissist.

As for Craig and I, we do not ascribe to the indemonstrable presupposition of Ussherian hermeneutics. The Bible does not put an age on the Universe, let alone on the Earth. But, then, I've told you this before, narcissist.

End of discussion.

 

[james bond]

Science takes us only so far. We do not understand our origins and Christianity, the Bible, and creation science explains it best.

Actually, it is science that when not under the bootheel of Christianity and the Bible allowed learning and discovery to flourish. Not too many people being tortured, dismembered or burned at the stake for disagreeing with church doctrine about the motion of the planets around the sun.

Actually, history shows us that it was atheism and communism which has killed the most people in history.

No. Religion wins in the human destruction contest.

Yes, I said that. The religion of state atheism won the human destruction contest.

 

[Hollie]

You poor, dear. You’re hoping to sidestep and obfuscate in regard to your earlier claim: “We have yet to observe a star being born”.

Yet, how strange that scientists disagree. What is interesting is that the timeframes and distances involved in the observations made, present a real kerfuffle for you Henry Morris groupies. The notion of a 6,000 year old planet tends to conflict with objects hundreds of thousands of light years away. We seem to be on the horns of a dilemma with the religioners claiming timeframes that conflict with modern methods of measuring distance across space.

What would William Lane Craig do?

Hollie, you poor dear,

One last post on this matter, as your dissembling has now been narrowed down to a mere expression in a post that, unlike the other posts, does not emphatically include the predicate in real time from which I was obviously speaking. It cannot be otherwise. But, then, that post was not addressed you, but to alang who does grasp the actualities of astronomical distances relative to the observations of stellar objects. I know this from his posts of months ago. I was just reminding him to recall what he already knows. It is axiomatically understood by me, alang and others that the observation of stellar objects can never be in real time. They can only be made from distances of light years. Scientists do not disagree with me, Hollie, you drooling 'tard. It is understood by us that when we talk about observing stellar objects, we do not mean in real time.

Check mate. Your dissembling has nowhere else to go. You lose, narcissist.

As for Craig and I, we do not ascribe to the indemonstrable presupposition of Ussherian hermeneutics. The Bible does not put an age on the Universe, let alone on the Earth. But, then, I've told you this before, narcissist.

End of discussion.

You poor, dear. You’re still hoping to sidestep and obfuscate in regard to your earlier claim: “We have yet to observe a star being born”. The material for formation of star systems is not a speculation, and does require various gods to make that happen. We can see the clouds of dust and gas in the galaxy from which stars are formed; and the evidence exists that stars and planetary systems are forming right now. Stars and solar systems are formed as a result of the life cycle of other stars. Dust and gases are what establish the cycle. Hydrogen and Helium are the basic materials from which galaxies are made, and heavy elements are subsequently formed in supernova, and blasted out into space. Those explosions do not mark the origin of the solar system, they mark end of a star, and the spewing of heavy elements into the clouds of the galaxy.

I can understand that you tend to get befuddled amidst your pontificating but I'm attempting to hold you to a consistent argument. Scientists have, as per the data supplied to you, observed the "birth" or formation of stars. The formation of stars takes on the order of millions of years and the distances involved means that timespans are even greater. That presents something of a dilemma to the notion of a 6,000 year old planet. Oh, my. How do we resolve that? Odd that the Bible puts a specific timeline to the Genesis fable. Did the gods just forget to date the age of the planet? Odd because Ussher has a very specific time and date for the flood. Working back from there, a rather accurate timeline can account for the 6,000 year old earth.

Odd how neither you, nor your self-assigned contemporary, Craig, can do much more than make excuses for what the Bible doesn't address.

But, then, you know this.

 

[Briss]

Let's move on to the birth narratives then. Here's a question for you, why was Jesus born of a virgin?

The short answer: God the Father willed it so to fulfill prophecy, to establish Jesus’ divine origin, and to confirm Christ’s sinless humanity for starters. IMO those are the chief reasons.

Something sinless about being born of a virgin? Or is there something sinful about being born of a used woman?

 

[Hollie]

Science takes us only so far. We do not understand our origins and Christianity, the Bible, and creation science explains it best.

Actually, it is science that when not under the bootheel of Christianity and the Bible allowed learning and discovery to flourish. Not too many people being tortured, dismembered or burned at the stake for disagreeing with church doctrine about the motion of the planets around the sun.

Actually, history shows us that it was atheism and communism which has killed the most people in history.

No. Religion wins in the human destruction contest.

Yes, I said that. The religion of state atheism won the human destruction contest.

You're wrong because religion wins the human destruction contest.

 

[james bond]

Science takes us only so far. We do not understand our origins and Christianity, the Bible, and creation science explains it best.

You mean you do not understand our origins and offer a "God of the gaps" explanation. You're standing on quicksand as those gaps continue to shrink.

First, that's not what "God of the gaps" means. You do not even understand that.

Second, what we see out in the universe with our telescope are planets and galaxies dying in collisions. Nothing coming into existence over time. We also do not find life anywhere else, but on Earth. It shows no abiogenesis and no intelligent aliens.

As for rest, I'll let you figure it out but by then it will be too late. OTOH, I have read Genesis, looked into creation science, and have found the best theory. The other religious theory was found bogus and eliminated.

First, I disagree.

Second:

Science says this is where stars are born. And around those stars, planets are forming.

I disagree with what you disagree.

Next, do you have a link for your art work where atheist scientists claim "this is where stars are born?" Where is it to our solar system? Why would a star for first and then a planet form around a star?

 

[Hollie]

Science takes us only so far. We do not understand our origins and Christianity, the Bible, and creation science explains it best.

You mean you do not understand our origins and offer a "God of the gaps" explanation. You're standing on quicksand as those gaps continue to shrink.

First, that's not what "God of the gaps" means. You do not even understand that.

Second, what we see out in the universe with our telescope are planets and galaxies dying in collisions. Nothing coming into existence over time. We also do not find life anywhere else, but on Earth. It shows no abiogenesis and no intelligent aliens.

As for rest, I'll let you figure it out but by then it will be too late. OTOH, I have read Genesis, looked into creation science, and have found the best theory. The other religious theory was found bogus and eliminated.

First, I disagree.

Second:

Science says this is where stars are born. And around those stars, planets are forming.

I disagree with what you disagree.

Next, do you have a link for your art work where atheist scientists claim "this is where stars are born?" Where is it to our solar system? Why would a star for first and then a planet form around a star?

The Bible provides a detailed explanation. If you want to understand gravity, the heavy elements, Angels playing harps, it's all in the Bible.

 

[james bond]

Isn't the 'evidence' the same as for your Creator? Since everything that exists must have a first cause...

This is the problem with non-creation science people and their adherents. They do not understand that:

1. Whatever begins to exist has a cause of its beginning.

God always existed. He did not begin to exist. God is beginningless, changeless, immaterial, timeless, spaceless and enormously powerful.

See how your logic is easily defeated and can be discarded?

 

[Hollie]

Isn't the 'evidence' the same as for your Creator? Since everything that exists must have a first cause...

This is the problem with non-creation science people and their adherents. They do not understand that:

1. Whatever begins to exist has a cause of its beginning.

God always existed. He did not begin to exist. God is beginningless, changeless, immaterial, timeless, spaceless and enormously powerful.

See how your logic is easily defeated and can be discarded?

So... the gods are exempted from the very rules you have established, because you say so.

I see now how effective "... because you say so" becomes to an argument.

 

[Dr Grump]

without any intelligent design?

Who designed the intelligent designers?

we would all look like a Picasso painting.

Some of us do

 

[Dr Grump]

God always existed. He did not begin to exist. God is beginningless, changeless, immaterial, timeless, spaceless and enormously powerful.

See how your logic is easily defeated and can be discarded?

Actually, knowing what we now know about science, you logic isn't even logic. It belongs in the realms of fairy tales.

 

[james bond]

God always existed. He did not begin to exist. God is beginningless, changeless, immaterial, timeless, spaceless and enormously powerful.

See how your logic is easily defeated and can be discarded?

Actually, knowing what we now know about science, you logic isn't even logic. It belongs in the realms of fairy tales.

Correction. Knowing what we always have known about evolutionary science, we know that belongs in the realms of fairy tales.

Not one thing of evolutionary science is observable, testable, nor falsifiable. Who can test millions or billions of years? We're still in thousands of years as we can find evidence for that.

 

[Dr Grump]

Not one thing of evolutionary science is observable, testable, nor falsifiable.

Actually plenty has been. However, when it comes to religion......ibid

 

[alang1216]

Why stupid? Isn't the 'evidence' the same as for your Creator? Since everything that exists must have a first cause...

Not everything that exists has a cause. How could that be?

Not sure what you're arguing. If everything that exists has a cause, what is the cause of God? If not everything requires a cause, why does the existence of the universe point to a creator? Seems logical to me, am I missing something?

 

[alang1216]

Let's move on to the birth narratives then. Here's a question for you, why was Jesus born of a virgin?

The short answer: God the Father willed it so to fulfill prophecy, to establish Jesus’ divine origin, and to confirm Christ’s sinless humanity for starters. IMO those are the chief reasons.

Gospel writers only knew the Greek translation of Isaiah 7:14 and therefore did not know that it mistranslated the Hebrew word ‘almāh as virgin instead of “young woman.” On the basis of this mistranslation, Gospel writers came up with the idea that Jesus’ mother, in order to fulfill the prediction of Isaiah 7:14, needed to be a virgin—and so simply made it up. (Christians have been defending this since the time of Justin Martyr so don't feel the need to repeat their arguments, just admit it is valid to question.)

Good theology but this makes for bad history. The fulfilling of prophecy has made for some wild stories and contradictions (e.g., was there a Roman census that never got documented by the Romans themselves)

 

[alang1216]

Science takes us only so far. We do not understand our origins and Christianity, the Bible, and creation science explains it best.

You mean you do not understand our origins and offer a "God of the gaps" explanation. You're standing on quicksand as those gaps continue to shrink.

First, that's not what "God of the gaps" means. You do not even understand that.

Second, what we see out in the universe with our telescope are planets and galaxies dying in collisions. Nothing coming into existence over time. We also do not find life anywhere else, but on Earth. It shows no abiogenesis and no intelligent aliens.

As for rest, I'll let you figure it out but by then it will be too late. OTOH, I have read Genesis, looked into creation science, and have found the best theory. The other religious theory was found bogus and eliminated.

First, I disagree.

Second:

Science says this is where stars are born. And around those stars, planets are forming.

I disagree with what you disagree.

Next, do you have a link for your art work where atheist scientists claim "this is where stars are born?" Where is it to our solar system? Why would a star for first and then a planet form around a star?

The 'art' is Hubble photos. You can find your own link but trust me, the majority of scientists believe stars are still being formed. You are welcome to disagree with them but that is what is taught.

 

[alang1216]

Isn't the 'evidence' the same as for your Creator? Since everything that exists must have a first cause...

This is the problem with non-creation science people and their adherents. They do not understand that:

1. Whatever begins to exist has a cause of its beginning.

God always existed. He did not begin to exist. God is beginningless, changeless, immaterial, timeless, spaceless and enormously powerful.

See how your logic is easily defeated and can be discarded?

I love that you don't see the obvious contradiction. You logic is monumentally flawed since you seek to define reality to suit your theology.