Zone1 The Design Argument for God’s Existence.

[Donald H]

So then you agree with me that God existed before the universe.

You already know that I don't believe the god existed either before or after the universe.

 

[Fort Fun Indiana]

There is no separation of church and state in any clause of the Constitution or in any amendment

False.

It's clear as day. 100% limits the actions of the congress and executive and judicial.

We codified both freedom of religion and freedom from religion into our constitution.

 

[Fort Fun Indiana]

The angels are still around, but back in their spirit bodies, although the fallen angels may be inhabiting some of the vicious animals, and vicious people as well.

It's my working theory.

Theory? Theories can be tested.

 

[Woodznutz]

Theory? Theories can be tested.

I've tested it, it's sound so far.

 

[Libby von H]

Well that's total nonsense.

In reality, science has shown us that design is simply not necessary at all to form things that are complicated and "seem designed" to our puny little minds.

Which is why everyone shoud think it is absurd that this thread even exists in the year 2024.

Don't be your usual fool, it is here and you won't accept that the poster is right and you are , well, your usual fool

 

[Fort Fun Indiana]

I've tested it, it's sound so far.

No you haven't. Let's keep it honest, shall we?

 

[frigidweirdo]

Well, they are spirit beings, invisible to us unless they appear in the flesh for a special duty.

Hebrews 13:2
Be not forgetful to entertain strangers: for thereby some have entertained angels unawares.

Oh great, they're invisible. And nobody sees them.

And what "special duty" do they have? Like killing all animals and humans in Noah's Ark kind of thing?

 

[Woodznutz]

No you haven't. Let's keep it honest, shall we?

Lots of evidence in the scriptures if you know what to look for.
Critical thinking isn't limited to secular subjects.

 

[Woodznutz]

Oh great, they're invisible. And nobody sees them.

And what "special duty" do they have? Like killing all animals and humans in Noah's Ark kind of thing?

Search "Angels in the Bible".

 

[cnm]

That the universe does not cycle is beyond dispute , so it had a start and it has an end. It didn't pop out of nowhere.
Even the rankest scientistic agnostic can NOT deny this
PROOF

Science does not do proof it does evidence. The current explanations are those that best fit known evidence. That you appear to think them proof is an indication you prefer faith based creed rather than scientific uncertainty.

 

[Woodznutz]

Science does not do proof it does evidence. The current explanations are those that best fit known evidence. That you appear to think them proof is an indication you prefer faith based creed rather than scientific uncertainty.

At some point ya gotta make up your mind.

 

[cnm]

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

I see you still can't manage an opinion of your own. I had thought that a requirement in Zone 1.

Oh well, TIL.

 

[cnm]

At some point ya gotta make up your mind.

No.

 

[expat500]

I see you still can't manage an opinion of your own. I had thought that a requirement in Zone 1.

Oh well, TIL.

Giving your uselessness away again? Nothing else to do with yourself? Others have noticed.

Is a personal attack a requirement in zone 1?

Oh well.

 

[frigidweirdo]

Search "Angels in the Bible".

No. You're not making an argument. You just bring up something wishywashy and then tell me to go do your research for you.

 

[Libby von H]

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

Was just over at the local college and saw great handouts on the DESIGN ARGUMENT. Some fools on here , unread , unthinking and poseurs at best, will say 'Design occurs naturally ' not realizing that even that statement proves design. At any rate you need to see

by Robert J SPitzer SJ Science at the Doorstep to God: Science and Reason in Support of God, the Soul, and Life after Death​

Notice that Darwin didn't even think the mind or our ability to know TRUTH (as questioner takes for granted) could exist with Evolution, It was Darwin's Design Thought

 

[Libby von H]

Science does not do proof it does evidence. The current explanations are those that best fit known evidence. That you appear to think them proof is an indication you prefer faith based creed rather than scientific uncertainty.

You silly uneducated person...

MICHAEL POLANYI

So long as we use a certain language, all questions that we can ask will have to be formulated in it and will thereby confirm the theory of the universe which is implied in the vocabulary and structure of the language.
Michael Polanyi

The amount of knowledge which we can justify from evidence directly available to us can never be large. The overwhelming proportion of our factual beliefs continue therefore to be held at second hand through trusting others, and in the great majority of cases our trust is placed in the authority of comparatively few people of widely acknowledged standing.
Michael Polanyi

And worst of all for you
a series of observations which at one time were held to be important scientific facts, were a few years later completely discredited and committed to oblivion, without ever having been disproved or indeed newly tested, simply because the conceptual framework of science had meanwhile so altered that the facts no longer appeared credible.

 

[Libby von H]

You silly uneducated person...

MICHAEL POLANYI

So long as we use a certain language, all questions that we can ask will have to be formulated in it and will thereby confirm the theory of the universe which is implied in the vocabulary and structure of the language.
Michael Polanyi

The amount of knowledge which we can justify from evidence directly available to us can never be large. The overwhelming proportion of our factual beliefs continue therefore to be held at second hand through trusting others, and in the great majority of cases our trust is placed in the authority of comparatively few people of widely acknowledged standing.
Michael Polanyi

And worst of all for you
a series of observations which at one time were held to be important scientific facts, were a few years later completely discredited and committed to oblivion, without ever having been disproved or indeed newly tested, simply because the conceptual framework of science had meanwhile so altered that the facts no longer appeared credible.

Just yell 'UNCLE!!"

 

[expat500]

You silly uneducated person...

lol.

’Silly’ nails it.

 

[MarcATL]

Science tells us that there was nothing, then there was a big bang and then there was something.

Kinda kooky when you simplify it.

Another way of putting it is that there was a bunch of applicable parts floating about in existence, then there was a bang or a storm and a functioning airplane was the result.

Science assumes.

However, all human existence is based on the observation that created things were designed.