Follow along with the video below to see how to install our site as a web app on your home screen.
Note: This feature currently requires accessing the site using the built-in Safari browser.
Well that's total nonsense.Scientists have redefined "design" so that natural things that clearly show design really don't.
There is no compelling reason to believe an any god.At some stage, nearly everyone ponders the fundamental question: Does God exist? While we each explore our own paths to answer this question, many turn to science as the ultimate guide for unraveling life's most profound mysteries.
Is there a compelling, science-based argument that God exists?
In this essay, we’ll argue that recent discoveries in modern physics provide an argument that strongly suggests that an intelligent designer, God, is behind the universe and its laws. While this particular argument is based upon discoveries that are only a few decades old, the basic form of the argument follows in the footsteps of the age-old design argument.
The Design Argument for God’s Existence - Aish.com
Is there a compelling, science-based argument that God exists? Check this one out.aish.com
The universe exists and could not have created itself.Name one good argument for a supreme being.
You mean like DNA?Is there a compelling, science-based argument that God exists?
What good would God be if we didn't?The problem is, we Anthropomorphise G-d.
It's an argument. For why something/someone must have created reality. Regardless of the argument's merits, it has no relationship with the claims of mystics trying to convince us they have the inside skinny on what God really wants.You mean like DNA?
It's an argument. For why something/someone must have created reality. Regardless of the argument's merits, it has no relationship with the claims of mystics trying to convince us they have the inside skinny on what God really wants.
What good would God be if we didn't?
Just wondering what kind of direct evidence they think will exist other than what was created. It's a philosophical argument, not a scientific argument. Science is the study of nature to discover the order of nature so as to be able to make predictions of nature. Science can be used to study what was created but anything before that creation is invisible to science.It's an argument. For why something/someone must have created reality. Regardless of the argument's merits, it has no relationship with the claims of mystics trying to convince us they have the inside skinny on what God really wants.
Oh my! You're trying to be clever and insulting. Why? My apologies if you found my post offensive. That want my intent.How about pseudo-intellectuals who don't have any real clue about it either sniveling about theological arguments? Do their specious claims of being 'rational' make them more convincing?
You mean Maimonides logic.I’m trying to fathom your logic.
Whatever. As i said, it's an argument. But it has nothing to do with dingwads trying to convince us they know anything about this supposed creator.Just wondering what kind of direct evidence they think will exist other than what was created. It's a philosophical argument, not a scientific argument. Science is the study of nature to discover the order of nature so as to be able to make predictions of nature. Science can be used to study what was created but anything before that creation is invisible to science.
You mean like God is every extant attribute of reality? Anything like that? That's just common sense.Whatever. As i said, it's an argument. But it has nothing to do with dingwads trying to convince us they know anything about this supposed creator.
Oh my! You're trying to be clever and insulting. Why? My apologies if you found my post offensive. That want my intent.
You mean like God is every extant attribute of reality? Anything like that?
gawd yes. Especially if a request for cash is involved.hatever. As i said, it's an argument. But it has nothing to do with dingwads trying to convince us they know anything about this supposed creator.
What did you see as "snide" in my general comments?So why are you making the snide commentaries?
It's not really something dullards need to ponder. The world needs cannon fodder.
No.You mean Maimonides logic.
"If you remove all anthropomorphic content from your conception of God: you remove all content of any kind. In the end, you are left with a God whose essence is unknowable and indescribable. Of what possible value is such a conception either to philosophy or religion?" Maimonides
