Does Science Suggest the Existence of God?

[Hollie]

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.

Remarkable how Cult indoctrination can align people with the most extreme conspiracy theories.

 

[Ringtone]

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?

Indeed, you are missing something. But that's my fault. I expressed the matter poorly in the previous post. Brain fart. I was thinking How could it be otherwise?, but wrote How could that be? Strike that.

Hence, not everything that exists has a cause of its existence. How could it be otherwise? After all, things do exist.

 

[alang1216]

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?

Indeed, you are missing something. But that's my fault. I expressed the matter poorly. Brain fart. Once again, not everything that exists has a cause of its existence. How could it be otherwise? After all, things do exist.

Thanks for the clarification. So if not everything that exists has a cause of its existence, the existence of the universe is not evidence of a creator. There may be a creator but the universe is not proof. Do I have that logic right?

 

[Ringtone]

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.

There's no ontological contradiction in James' expression of the matter, and my expression of it in the previous instance was merely a brain fart. What are you talking about? How could everything that exists today started to exist in the finite past?

 

[Ringtone]

Ringtone: 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?

In the Bible, Jewish genealogy is not reckoned in terms of matriarchy, but in terms of patriarchy per the order of familial spiritual authority. Hence, the God of Abraham, Isaac and Jacob or, more to the point, Abraham the son of Terah, Isaac the son of Abraham, Jacob the son of Isaac. . . .

Jesus is the adopted son of Joseph. His actual Father is God via the Incarnation and immaculate conception; hence, Jesus the Christ is the son of God the Father. Jesus the Christ's divine origin and sinless nature are established. Mary's virginity, in and of itself, is only partially relevant to that concern, but, of course, Jesus' incontrovertible immaculate conception is a miraculous sign of God's power and authority over nature and a fulfillment of prophecy.

 

[Hollie]

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.

There's no ontological contradiction in James' expression of the matter, and my expression of it in the previous instance was merely a brain fart. What are you talking about? How could everything that exists today started to exist in the finite past?

Who is it that you believe might be fooled by “no ontological contradiction”? Such a statement is really meaningless in a reasoned, rational, science based argument because an ontological / philosophical argument has no requirement to be true or factual. Such views are not relevant to science and science has nothing to say about them.

The science argument is different altogether and relevant to the human enterprise of learning about the natural world and to understand its mechanisms. Science relies upon evidence as information about the world. That evidence must logically be epistemologically naturalistic as epistemology is the relevant description for the study of how we understand the world. Supernatural evidence doesn’t exist for examination of the supernatural. I don’t know of any mechanism to study supernaturalism.

Therefore, so far as science is considered, there are two modes of knowledge: one is a seeming contradiction; ignorance, (not knowing the facts),and the other is reasonable or successful explanations of natural processes derived on the basis of evidence. Evidentiary explanations are superior to philosophical / metaphysical musings because the latter, ultimately, have no requirement to be true.

Epistemologically natural explanations are the only reliable explanations we have that allow us to understand the world in which we live. The supernatural / philosophical / metaphysical conjectures are used to reinforce a worldview, not to examine sometimes cold, harsh realities.

 

[alang1216]

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.

There's no ontological contradiction in James' expression of the matter, and my expression of it in the previous instance was merely a brain fart. What are you talking about? How could everything that exists today started to exist in the finite past?

Why does james bond say that God has always existed? Why do you say that the existence of the universe prove God exists? Theology not science.

 

[Ringtone]

Thanks for the clarification. So if not everything that exists has a cause of its existence, the existence of the universe is not evidence of a creator. There may be a creator but the universe is not proof. Do I have that logic right?

Sorry, I had to take care of other matters at home.

No. Think again about what you're suggesting. Something does exist, rather than nothing; you're unwittingly implying the former is possible, namely, that nothing exists.

 

[Briss]

Ringtone: 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?

In the Bible, Jewish genealogy is not reckoned in terms of matriarchy, but in terms of patriarchy per the order of familial spiritual authority. Hence, the God of Abraham, Isaac and Jacob or, more to the point, Abraham the son of Terah, Isaac the son of Abraham, Jacob the son of Isaac. . . .

Jesus is the adopted son of Joseph. His actual Father is God via the Incarnation and immaculate conception; hence, Jesus the Christ is the son of God the Father. Jesus the Christ's divine origin and sinless nature are established. Mary's virginity, in and of itself, is only partially relevant to that concern, but, of course, Jesus' incontrovertible immaculate conception is a miraculous sign of God's power and authority over nature and a fulfillment of prophecy.

If the god actually had power and authority over nature, it would have miraculously transformed Joseph's sperm into its own magical stuff rather than open the door to accusations about Mary's unfaithfulness.

 

[ChemEngineer]

If the god actually had power and authority over nature, it would have miraculously transformed Joseph's sperm into its own magical stuff rather than open the door to accusations about Mary's unfaithfulness.

Magic is YOUR belief. You believe, and have faith in your belief that the universe made itself out of nothing. Magic. "If someone made God, He wouldn't be God, would He." - Professor John Lennox, Oxford University, A Matter of Gravity

Now you join your fellow Leftists on my Ignore List. "Go from the presence of a foolish man." - The Holy Bible

 

[Ringtone]

There's no ontological contradiction [i.e., contradiction in being] in James' expression of the matter, and my expression of it in the previous instance was merely a brain fart. What are you talking about? How could everything that exists today have begun to exist in the finite past?

Why does james bond say that God has always existed? Why do you say that the existence of the universe prove [sic] God exists? Theology not science.

False. The necessity of eternalism and sufficient causation are incontrovertibly a matter of logic and science. It is their ramifications that are necessarily theological. Something has always existed, and the only sufficient cause for everything else that exists would necessarily be an eternally self-subsistent, immutable, indivisible, immaterial and timeless being of incomparable greatness. Why can't you grasp that?

 

[alang1216]

Thanks for the clarification. So if not everything that exists has a cause of its existence, the existence of the universe is not evidence of a creator. There may be a creator but the universe is not proof. Do I have that logic right?

Sorry, I had to take care of other matters at home.

No. Think again about what you're suggesting. Something does exist, rather than nothing; you're unwittingly implying the former is possible, namely, that nothing exists.

I think we agree that something, namely the universe, exists. What you have failed to convince me of is that this implies a creator. You have also failed to convince me that this creator can't have had a creator.

 

[Hollie]

There's no ontological contradiction [i.e., contradiction in being] in James' expression of the matter, and my expression of it in the previous instance was merely a brain fart. What are you talking about? How could everything that exists today have begun to exist in the finite past?

Why does james bond say that God has always existed? Why do you say that the existence of the universe prove [sic] God exists? Theology not science.

False. The necessity of eternalism and sufficient causation are incontrovertibly a matter of logic and science. It is their ramifications that are necessarily theological. Something has always existed, and the only sufficient cause for everything else that exists would necessarily be an eternally self-subsistent, immutable, indivisible, immaterial and timeless being of incomparable greatness. Why can't you grasp that?

Supernaturalism is not a supportable claim for causation.

 

[alang1216]

There's no ontological contradiction [i.e., contradiction in being] in James' expression of the matter, and my expression of it in the previous instance was merely a brain fart. What are you talking about? How could everything that exists today have begun to exist in the finite past?

Why does james bond say that God has always existed? Why do you say that the existence of the universe prove [sic] God exists? Theology not science.

False. The necessity of eternalism and sufficient causation are incontrovertibly a matter of logic and science. It is their ramifications that are necessarily theological. Something has always existed, and the only sufficient cause for everything else that exists would necessarily be an eternally self-subsistent, immutable, indivisible, immaterial and timeless being of incomparable greatness. Why can't you grasp that?

You say something has always existed and I don't disagree. Where you lose me is saying that what always existed is a 'being'. Why can't it be that the universe has always existed and periodically sends out an offshoot that we see as our universe beginning with a Big Bang. We don't know what came before the BB but it seems presumptuous to fill that gap in our knowledge with a human invention.

 

[Briss]

If the god actually had power and authority over nature, it would have miraculously transformed Joseph's sperm into its own magical stuff rather than open the door to accusations about Mary's unfaithfulness.

Magic is YOUR belief. You believe, and have faith in your belief that the universe made itself out of nothing. Magic. "If someone made God, He wouldn't be God, would He." - Professor John Lennox, Oxford University, A Matter of Gravity

Now you join your fellow Leftists on my Ignore List. "Go from the presence of a foolish man." - The Holy Bible

Actually, to sum up your position, you see a universe around you, and therefore, GOD! And you even gave it an attitude and characteristics based on someone else's imagination. So, it would appear that magic is your belief, and not mine.

 

[Ringtone]

Ringtone: 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?

In the Bible, Jewish genealogy is not reckoned in terms of matriarchy, but in terms of patriarchy per the order of familial spiritual authority. Hence, the God of Abraham, Isaac and Jacob or, more to the point, Abraham the son of Terah, Isaac the son of Abraham, Jacob the son of Isaac. . . .

Jesus is the adopted son of Joseph. His actual Father is God via the Incarnation and immaculate conception; hence, Jesus the Christ is the son of God the Father. Jesus the Christ's divine origin and sinless nature are established. Mary's virginity, in and of itself, is only partially relevant to that concern, but, of course, Jesus' incontrovertible immaculate conception is a miraculous sign of God's power and authority over nature and a fulfillment of prophecy.

If the god actually had power and authority over nature, it would have miraculously transformed Joseph's sperm into its own magical stuff rather than open the door to accusations about Mary's unfaithfulness.

Oh, God would have, eh?

So you admit that God exists. Good. Now, in this instance, are you claiming to be God, claiming to know God's mind, or claiming to know better than God?

crickets chirping

Moving on. . . .

First, miraculous ≠ magical. Contextually, the miraculous goes to events of divine intervention, you know, to God's power and authority over nature given that God by definition is nature's Creator.

Second, had God done things the way you think he should have done them . . . how would God's power and authority over nature be demonstrated to all in this instance? And the fulfillment of prophecy? The establishment of Jesus’ divine origin? The confirmation of Christ’s sinless humanity?

crickets chirping

 

[alang1216]

Ringtone: 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?

In the Bible, Jewish genealogy is not reckoned in terms of matriarchy, but in terms of patriarchy per the order of familial spiritual authority. Hence, the God of Abraham, Isaac and Jacob or, more to the point, Abraham the son of Terah, Isaac the son of Abraham, Jacob the son of Isaac. . . .

Jesus is the adopted son of Joseph. His actual Father is God via the Incarnation and immaculate conception; hence, Jesus the Christ is the son of God the Father. Jesus the Christ's divine origin and sinless nature are established. Mary's virginity, in and of itself, is only partially relevant to that concern, but, of course, Jesus' incontrovertible immaculate conception is a miraculous sign of God's power and authority over nature and a fulfillment of prophecy.

Assuming all that is true, doesn't that mean that Jesus is not related to David and that prophecy was wrong?

 

[Ringtone]

Actually, to sum up your position, you see a universe around you, and therefore, GOD! And you even gave it an attitude and characteristics based on someone else's imagination. So, it would appear that magic is your belief, and not mine.

False on all counts, and the only thing that's in evidence here is your lack of thought. Neither you nor I require any information beyond the ramifications of logic, mathematics and science to know that God necessarily exists and necessarily has the attributes I enumerated in the above.

 

[Hollie]

Actually, to sum up your position, you see a universe around you, and therefore, GOD! And you even gave it an attitude and characteristics based on someone else's imagination. So, it would appear that magic is your belief, and not mine.

False on all counts, and the only thing that's in evidence here is your lack of thought. Neither you nor I require any information beyond the ramifications of logic, mathematics and science to know that God necessarily exists and necessarily has the attributes I enumerated in the above.

Refreshing to see you admit that your claims to gods are mere "...because I say so", nonsense.

 

[Ringtone]

Ringtone: 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?

In the Bible, Jewish genealogy is not reckoned in terms of matriarchy, but in terms of patriarchy per the order of familial spiritual authority. Hence, the God of Abraham, Isaac and Jacob or, more to the point, Abraham the son of Terah, Isaac the son of Abraham, Jacob the son of Isaac. . . .

Jesus is the adopted son of Joseph. His actual Father is God via the Incarnation and immaculate conception; hence, Jesus the Christ is the son of God the Father. Jesus the Christ's divine origin and sinless nature are established. Mary's virginity, in and of itself, is only partially relevant to that concern, but, of course, Jesus' incontrovertible immaculate conception is a miraculous sign of God's power and authority over nature and a fulfillment of prophecy.

Assuming all that is true, doesn't that mean that Jesus is not related to David and that prophecy was wrong?

No. Both Joseph and Mary are among the fruits of David's loins. That is, they are of the Davidic lineage. Hence, they are distant cousins. I assumed you knew that. Well, now you do.