Does Science Suggest the Existence of God?

[Hollie]

What's he's saying is that it's unbelievable that everything came about by accident or due to science, therefore a 'god' of some description must have been responsible. In his case it is probably the Christian god, as opposed to the plethora of other gods. However, when you point out the fact that if you take that to its logical conclusion - ie, well, where did the god come from? - that's where the hypocrisy comes in. "Oh, he always was". To which I say, "oh, right. So when it suits you, something can come from nothing, but when it fucks up your narrative, then there had to be some supernatural being involved." No wonder religion is slowly going the way of the Dodo.

What Dr Grump is apparently saying is that something has not necessarily always existed; hence, the cosmos just popped into existence from an ontological nothingness or that science(?!) caused everything to exist.

crickets chirping

By the way, what, precisely, is this science thingy that caused everything else to exist before, mind you, this science thingy existed?

You want to rewrite that mindless gibberish, sport, or are you just going to let it hang out there for God and everybody else to see just how foolish you are?

Beside the ignorant comments you made, I have never read where anyone suggested that ''science'' caused anything to exist. Science is a process of discovery. Science has no powers to magically / supernaturally cause something to exist as you claim your gods have.

While you're thumping your Bible, I would advise that a book is simply that, a book. Until there is a way to connect a supernatural being with the authorship of a book, it's safe to assume that the book is, in fact, merely written by men. Similarly, your claims to a version of polytheistic gods are mere unsubstantiated claims until you can offer something connecting your gods to anything in the natural, rational world.

 

[alang1216]

Please reread this exchange very carefully and think, then read my response:

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.

For the moment, forget about God—i.e., the ultimate apprehension of the pertinent ramifications. Remove him from the equation of things, as it were, from in your mind.

1. That which begins to exist must have a cause of its existence.

Beyond vacuum energy, one cannot scientifically ascertain what preceded the BB with any specificity relative to the origin of our universe. That has absolutely no bearing on the ultimate ramifications of logic, mathematics and science that the physical world (the material realm of being) necessarily began to exist in the finite past. Neither our universe in its current form nor the physical world at large can be past eternal. An actual infinite is an absurdity. In this case, an infinite regress of causation cannot be traversed to the present. Humans did not invent the ultimate ramifications of logic, mathematics and science any more than humans invented the principles of eternalism and sufficient causation on which they're predicated.

Humans axiomatically and a prior intuit these things. This is what you keep failing to grasp.

Hence . . .

2. The physical world is an entity that began to exist and has a cause of its existence.

Again you claim as fact things you do not know:

• the physical world (the material realm of being) necessarily began to exist in the finite past (yet you also so "one cannot scientifically ascertain what preceded the BB")
• Neither our universe in its current form nor the physical world at large can be past eternal.
• An actual infinite is an absurdity (is God infinite?)

Again, forget about God for the moment and focus on the first two in the above.

Do not conflate the logical and mathematical apprehension that the physical world (the material realm of being) necessarily began to exist in the finite past and the scientific apprehension that one cannot scientifically ascertain what preceded the BB . . . i.e., beyond the apparent preexistence of vacuum energy.

They are categorically distinct apprehensions.

Recall, science's purview, as it were, is limited to the substances and processes of the physical world. Hence, no one can scientifically assert that our universe is the one and only to have ever existed. But whether our universe is the one and only to have ever existed, one large spacetime continuum, albeit, with localized areas of activity, one in a cyclical series of universes, or a multiverse: the cosmological configuration at large cannot be past eternal.

We cannot scientifically preclude the former potentialities in bold, but we can logically, mathematically and scientifically preclude the possibility that the latter is past eternal!

Science has recently caught up with what logic and mathematics have told us all along about entities of space, time, matter and energy. The physical world cannot be an actual infinite.

In scientific terms:

Our theorem shows that null and timelike geodesics are past-incomplete in inflationary models, whether or not energy conditions hold, provided only that the averaged expansion condition H av > 0 holds along these past-directed geodesics. This is a stronger conclusion than the one arrived at in previous work in that we have shown under reasonable assumptions that almost all causal geodesics {i.e., as distinguished from those of higher dimensions], when extended to the past of an arbitrary point, reach the boundary of the inflating region of spacetime in a finite proper time" ( Borde-Guth-Vilenkin).​

This theorem extends to cyclical inflationary models and the inflationary models of multiverse as well. The physical universe at large, regardless of the chronological or the cosmological order of its structure, cannot overcome the thermodynamics of entropy.

Joined by others, Vilenkin summarizes the matter as follows:

It is said that an argument is what convinces reasonable men and a proof is what it takes to convince even an unreasonable man. With the proof now in place, cosmologists can no longer hide behind the possibility of a past eternal universe. There is no escape, they have to face the problem of a cosmic beginning (Many World in One; New York: Hill and Wang, 2006, pg. 176).​

I would encourage you to read my article in which I discuss all of the potential cosmological models, so that you may have a more comprehensive understanding as to why this is so. Create a Youtube account and sign in before you click on this link: https://www.youtube.com/channel/UCr5aMlaeI6J7FOrDc0kctDg/discussion . You don't have to post anything, and you can always delete the account after reading the article and asking any questions you might have

None of this is settled science:

Carroll wrote in post-debate comments that Craig "used the celebrated (by theologians) Borde-Guth-Vilenkin theorem, which says that a universe with an average expansion rate greater than zero must be geodesically incomplete in the past." More:

The second premise of the Kalam argument is that the universe began to exist. Which may even be true! But we certainly don’t know, or even have strong reasons to think one way or the other. Craig thinks we do have a strong reason, the Borde-Guth-Vilenkin theorem. So I explained what every physicist who has thought about the issue understands: that the real world is governed by quantum mechanics, and the BGV theorem assumes a classical spacetime, so it says nothing definitive about what actually happens in the universe; it is only a guideline to when our classical description breaks down.

In the debate, Carroll cutely projected photos on a screen behind him showing Dr. Guth holding up a series of signs: "I don’t know whether the universe had a beginning." "I suspect the universe didn’t have a beginning." "It’s very likely eternal but nobody knows."​

Thanks for the invite, I'll try and take a look when I get a chance.

 

[Ringtone]

None of this is settled science:


Carroll wrote in post-debate comments that Craig "used the celebrated (by theologians) Borde-Guth-Vilenkin theorem, which says that a universe with an average expansion rate greater than zero must be geodesically incomplete in the past." More:

The second premise of the Kalam argument is that the universe began to exist. Which may even be true! But we certainly don’t know, or even have strong reasons to think one way or the other. Craig thinks we do have a strong reason, the Borde-Guth-Vilenkin theorem. So I explained what every physicist who has thought about the issue understands: that the real world is governed by quantum mechanics, and the BGV theorem assumes a classical spacetime, so it says nothing definitive about what actually happens in the universe; it is only a guideline to when our classical description breaks down.

In the debate, Carroll cutely projected photos on a screen behind him showing Dr. Guth holding up a series of signs: "I don’t know whether the universe had a beginning." "I suspect the universe didn’t have a beginning." "It’s very likely eternal but nobody knows."

Thanks for the invite, I'll try and take a look when I get a chance.

False. Carroll's assertion relative to classical mechanics is misleading. That issue goes to the t = 0 of minimum entropy to maximum entropy, which is inescapable. Quantum mechanics, in this instance, strictly goes to the potentialities and origin of vacuum energy. These are the things that are unsettled and, ultimately, beyond the purview of science!

You need to carefully reread the article you cited. The author is pointing out the fact that Carroll misrepresents Craig’ observations and those of BGV.

By the way, I touch on that debate in my article. You get to the discussion page of my channel using this link: https://www.youtube.com/channel/UCr5aMlaeI6J7FOrDc0kctDg/discussion .

See "Genetically Modified Simpleton (GMS) Bumps His Head and Makes Baby Talk about the Fine-Tuned Argument" for my survey of the various, potential cosmologies.

 

[Hollie]

Speak for yourself. I know God exists.

Of course you do, dear.

 

[alang1216]

See "Genetically Modified Simpleton (GMS) Bumps His Head and Makes Baby Talk about the Fine-Tuned Argument" for my survey of the various, potential cosmologies.

You made my head hurt. I have to admit most of it went over my head but they all seemed like well reasoned, logical points. Unfortunately I don't recall any evidence to support the logic. Yes we're here but...

I still don't know how any of this logic solves the equation creator = God = Yahweh?

 

[Ringtone]

See "Genetically Modified Simpleton (GMS) Bumps His Head and Makes Baby Talk about the Fine-Tuned Argument" for my survey of the various, potential cosmologies.

You made my head hurt. I have to admit most of it went over my head but they all seemed like well reasoned, logical points. Unfortunately I don't recall any evidence to support the logic. Yes we're here but...

I still don't know how any of this logic solves the equation creator = God = Yahweh?

Sorry about that. I meant to tell you that you could skip past the first five sections to get at the survey of the potential cosmologies. The takeaway is that just as logic and mathematics tell us that a past eternal cosmos is impossible, so does science. Hence, the physical world (the material realm of being) began to exist in the finite past and, thus, has a cause of its existence.

So what is the nature of this cause? It cannot be of a material substance! It would have to be of a timeless, spaceless, immaterial, immutable and indivisible substance. Absorb that.

 

[BreezeWood]

The resurrection stories are pure theology and not history, IMHO.

Like I previously surmised from your attitude, alang, you really don't want to know the truth.

The resurrection accounts are not theological in nature at all. That's not even Ehrman's line of argumentation in this instance, as that would be glaringly nonsensical. You're either making things up in that wise . . . or, in all likelihood, conflating things in your mind again. The accounts of Christ's resurrection are strictly narrative, and it has been known since the Third Century that Mark 16: 9-20 is not autographically sound. Indeed, we (scholars and serious students of textual criticism and the forensics thereof) know that the Apostolic Fathers, before the Church Fathers, knew that it was not autographically sound, and, via the textual forensics of the manuscripts of their works, we can confidently trace that understanding of things back to the time of the autographs, i.e., all the way back to the First Century!

I was saving that surprise for you when we got to the "contradiction" cynically alleged by Erhman regarding the number of angels encountered by the women at the tomb. Erhman, unlike the biasly predisposed and naive audience that lines his pockets, knows that the Markos pericope anastasis is not autographical and, thus, not a legitimate premise from which to launch any allegation of narrational contradiction, let alone a legitimate premise from which to launch any allegation of textual unreliability. Scholars, including Erhman, know that this passage was never a part of the original text in the first place! Indeed, we know that the Markos pericope anastasis was not even a part of the earliest manuscripts. It crept in via the hand of an overeager scribe of the early Third Century. LOL!

But, of course, you already knew that the Markos pericope anastasis was not part of the original text from Erhman. So I have some questions for you. Regarding its actual origin, why didn't you investigate the chronological order of things for yourself? Why didn't Erhman's obvious dissembling awaken you? Are you really this gullible and thoughtless, alang? Sorry, but your lack of curiosity for one who claims to care about the truth is appalling.

By the way, Erhman has been roundly scorned by secular and believing textual critics alike for his manipulatively cynical abuse of laymen. In his popular works, he routinely attacks the reliability of the textual body, to sensational and profitable effect, based on what scholars and serious students of the Bible know to be nothing more than insignificant variants, namely, obvious and easily corrected transcription errors—misspellings, word omissions, word substitutions, garbled syntax and the like. LOL! Erhman is a shameless huckster. A smile and a shoeshine. These comprise 99% of the total variants, approximately 396,000 of the 400,000 total, and the instances and nature of the comparatively minuscule remainder are known for what they are as well!

Most of these consist of variants with essentially equal evidence for and against their autographical authenticity; hence, we currently cannot be absolutely certain of their authenticity. Due to their historical, transcriptional and ideological origins, we know that the rest are additions to the textually autographical body of forensics. These are either theologically gratuitous, dialogically gratuitous or narratively gratuitous additions that crept into what is in fact a minority of the codices, and most of these were known to be errant additions to both the Apostolic and Church Fathers of centuries ago.

An example of the latter is the Markos pericope anastasis discussed in the above. Other examples include the pericope krisis of the Beatitudes (Matthew 7:1), the pericope adulterae (John 7:53 - 8:11), and the pericope Trias (I John 5:7), all of which derive from the Textus Receptus, the codex on which the King James translation is based.

Most translations of the 20th Century do not include the passages from the errant additions or, because of their historic literary value, anontatively bracket them with caveats regarding their highly improbable authenticity. Study editions of the KJV, my favorite for its overall translational quality and elegance, retain them with the caveats.

The Markos pericope anastasis and the pericope krisis of the Beatitudes, for example, are not precluded from the textually autographical body of forensics merely because they are potentially contradictory relative to their contexts, but because they do not occur in the earliest surviving manuscripts at all. Their chronological origin is that of a comparatively miniscule line of the codices from the Third and Fourth Century. While the pericope adulterae and the pericope Trias do not imply any contextual contradictions at all, they are precluded because they are of the very same specious origin.

(By the way, an interesting and persuasive line of evidence suggests that the pericope adulterae, while definitely not part of the original text, is an historically authentic oral tradition.)

In any event, we know where the bodies lay, as it were, and with absolute confidence, via the exquisitely attentive forensics of textual criticism, we may confidently assert the autographical reliability of at least 99% of the textual body of manuscripts.

Back to your post. . . .

We can debate forever and not agree and that is fine and good but I seems to me we are arguing over the placement of the deck chairs on the Titanic.

No, actually, I was in the process of systematically debunking the supposed "contradictions" alleged by Erhman. I've utterly demolished two of them so far: (1) regarding the number of women who went to the tomb that morning and (2) regarding the number of angels seen by the women at the tomb that morning. You debunked the second one yourself and spoiled my surprise; albeit, you did so unwittingly because you have never bothered to think things through for yourself.. Sigh So I had to help you see the obvious again. Indeed, Erhman's allegation of contradiction regarding the number of angels is not merely a comparative misreading of the accounts in the Textus Receptus, but an outright lie perpetrated on the ignorant. Once again, Erhman knows very well that the Markos pericope anastasis was never a part of the original texts in the first place!

I've written a couple of articles about Bart Erhman's grossly misleading characterization of the textual variants among the biblical manuscripts and their impact on the autographical reliability of the forensically reconstructed textual body. I made a similar distinction as that of Wallace, which Craig touches on, namely, the distinction between "the scholarly Bart Erhman", who knows better, and "the popular Bart Erhman" who lies all the way to the bank. It's actually a running joke among honest textual critics within the community.

I wrote: "Textual critics of the biblical manuscripts will appreciate the observation that while the pericope krisis is the Osteenian variant of the textual body, Bart Erhman is the Osteenian of textual criticism." (By the way, just in case you missed it, that's Osteenian as in that charlatan Joel Osteen.)

The Romans left their crucified dead to rot on the cross as a lesson to other potential rebels. As word of the 'resurrection' of Jesus spread, stories were invented to 'prove' it really happened and how we know it happened.

False. The Romans made exceptions for the Jews, especially, and for all occupied nations in general during relatively peaceful times for political and legal reasons: Apologetics: Is It Possible that Jesus' Body Was Left on the Cross? - Timothy Paul Jones

Your indemonstrable supposition of disbelief and childish cynicism is dwarfed by the mountain of historical, textual and rational evidence. You just don't believe that Jesus is the Christ. The rest is just the noises you make when you hear no evidence, see no evidence, and speak no evidence as follows:

View attachment 444943

I'm beginning to think that you really don't want to examine the "contradictions." You're the one who raised them in the first place, by the way, sans any argument whatsoever. You just threw up a list, but because I'm a nice guy I offered to debunk them for you.

That's two down in flames.

Next?

.

I'm beginning to think that you really don't want to examine the "contradictions." You're the one who raised them in the first place, by the way, sans any argument whatsoever. You just threw up a list, but because I'm a nice guy I offered to debunk them for you.

.
you have yet to account for the roman soldiers present at the tomb -
.

.
being stepped on by the resurrected religious itinerant ... funny they laid there and did nothing about it. or mentioned it to the msm.

 

[Hollie]

See "Genetically Modified Simpleton (GMS) Bumps His Head and Makes Baby Talk about the Fine-Tuned Argument" for my survey of the various, potential cosmologies.

You made my head hurt. I have to admit most of it went over my head but they all seemed like well reasoned, logical points. Unfortunately I don't recall any evidence to support the logic. Yes we're here but...

I still don't know how any of this logic solves the equation creator = God = Yahweh?

Sorry about that. I meant to tell you that you could skip past the first five sections to get at the survey of the potential cosmologies. The takeaway is that just as logic and mathematics tell us that a past eternal cosmos is impossible, so does science. Hence, the physical world (the material realm of being) began to exist in the finite past and, thus, has a cause of its existence.

So what is the nature of this cause? It cannot be of a material substance! It would have to be of a timeless, spaceless, immaterial, immutable and indivisible substance. Absorb that.

Yours is the standard, stereotypical “gods of the gaps” pleading. They’re all the same. They’re all so grindingly predictable. Because there is a gap in our understanding of how the universe began, “the gawds did it”. The debunking of ID’iot creationist pseudoscience doesn't require anything beyond holding ID’iot creationers to a standard of demonstration and peer review. There is no mystery why the ID’iot creation ministries don’t publish in and peer reviewed scientific journals; that’s because those journals have better things to do than resolve arguments such as how many angels can dance on the head of a pin.

There is nothing to suggest that any collection of supernatural gods had anything to do with the material realm. Matters of science do not address magic and supernaturalism.hand. The religious motivations underlying appeal to supernatural designer gods is self evident. So the question becomes: Can ID’iot creation appeals to supernaturalism be reformulated in a manner which would make it non-religious and scientifically relevant? The answer is no.

 

[alang1216]

See "Genetically Modified Simpleton (GMS) Bumps His Head and Makes Baby Talk about the Fine-Tuned Argument" for my survey of the various, potential cosmologies.

You made my head hurt. I have to admit most of it went over my head but they all seemed like well reasoned, logical points. Unfortunately I don't recall any evidence to support the logic. Yes we're here but...

I still don't know how any of this logic solves the equation creator = God = Yahweh?

Sorry about that. I meant to tell you that you could skip past the first five sections to get at the survey of the potential cosmologies. The takeaway is that just as logic and mathematics tell us that a past eternal cosmos is impossible, so does science. Hence, the physical world (the material realm of being) began to exist in the finite past and, thus, has a cause of its existence.

So what is the nature of this cause? It cannot be of a material substance! It would have to be of a timeless, spaceless, immaterial, immutable and indivisible substance. Absorb that.

I may have neglected to mention that when it comes to the creation of the universe, I'm agnostic. Since I don't know, or at least don't understand, what happened before the BB I can't say there is not a Creator. I really have no evidence either way. Logic is great, solid evidence is much better.

However, when it comes to the God of the OT/NT, I'm an atheist. I see all the evidence pointing to a purely natural past. No supernatural intercessions required. If there was a Creator, he built the clock and set it in motion but has not intervened since.

 

[Ringtone]

See "Genetically Modified Simpleton (GMS) Bumps His Head and Makes Baby Talk about the Fine-Tuned Argument" for my survey of the various, potential cosmologies.

You made my head hurt. I have to admit most of it went over my head but they all seemed like well reasoned, logical points. Unfortunately I don't recall any evidence to support the logic. Yes we're here but...

I still don't know how any of this logic solves the equation creator = God = Yahweh?

Sorry about that. I meant to tell you that you could skip past the first five sections to get at the survey of the potential cosmologies. The takeaway is that just as logic and mathematics tell us that a past eternal cosmos is impossible, so does science. Hence, the physical world (the material realm of being) began to exist in the finite past and, thus, has a cause of its existence.

So what is the nature of this cause? It cannot be of a material substance! It would have to be of a timeless, spaceless, immaterial, immutable and indivisible substance. Absorb that.

I may have neglected to mention that when it comes to the creation of the universe, I'm agnostic. Since I don't know, or at least don't understand, what happened before the BB I can't say there is not a Creator. I really have no evidence either way. Logic is great, solid evidence is much better.

However, when it comes to the God of the OT/NT, I'm an atheist. I see all the evidence pointing to a purely natural past. No supernatural intercessions required. If there was a Creator, he built the clock and set it in motion but has not intervened since.

You're still not grasping the reality of things.

You do not see all the evidence pointing to a purely natural past. No one does! By solid evidence, you apparently mean empirical (or scientific) evidence. All of the evidence—logical, mathematical and empirical—point to an absolute beginning of the physical world at large, which includes vacuum energy. Vacuum energy, which necessarily preceded any cosmological structure and the astronomical constituents thereof, is subject to the very same dynamics of entropy! The BB and the prevailing cosmological structure, whether it be a universe or a multiverse, is utterly irrelevant to that reality. In other words, the unsettled science only pertains to the chronological order of cosmological structure. Nothing else!

Everybody who understands the science and the ramifications thereof, knows that the physical world at large, which, once again, includes vacuum energy, began to exist in the finite past. The likes of Carroll, despite his attempt to rhetorically obscure this reality relative to the unsettled science, knows this as well. Guth, whom Carroll implicitly misrepresented knows this. Guth was merely alluding to the commonsensical observation that while in all likelihood our universe is the one and only to have ever existed, that contention cannot be scientifically ascertained and that he personally believes that others have existed in the past (in terms of a series of universes) or do exist now (in terms of multiverse). Carroll was just trying to imply that Craig did not understand that in the debate you cited. Despicable! Craig understands the possibility of that just fine. Craig, though he believes it's improbable, does not deny that possibility at all. No one who understand the science does.

Now, what do you think the prevailing scientific opinion holds regarding that which immediately preceded the physical world at large? Hint: it's immaterial in substance, and scientifically informed atheists, agnostics and theists all agree that it necessarily preceded vacuum energy.

 

[Hollie]

See "Genetically Modified Simpleton (GMS) Bumps His Head and Makes Baby Talk about the Fine-Tuned Argument" for my survey of the various, potential cosmologies.

You made my head hurt. I have to admit most of it went over my head but they all seemed like well reasoned, logical points. Unfortunately I don't recall any evidence to support the logic. Yes we're here but...

I still don't know how any of this logic solves the equation creator = God = Yahweh?

Sorry about that. I meant to tell you that you could skip past the first five sections to get at the survey of the potential cosmologies. The takeaway is that just as logic and mathematics tell us that a past eternal cosmos is impossible, so does science. Hence, the physical world (the material realm of being) began to exist in the finite past and, thus, has a cause of its existence.

So what is the nature of this cause? It cannot be of a material substance! It would have to be of a timeless, spaceless, immaterial, immutable and indivisible substance. Absorb that.

I may have neglected to mention that when it comes to the creation of the universe, I'm agnostic. Since I don't know, or at least don't understand, what happened before the BB I can't say there is not a Creator. I really have no evidence either way. Logic is great, solid evidence is much better.

However, when it comes to the God of the OT/NT, I'm an atheist. I see all the evidence pointing to a purely natural past. No supernatural intercessions required. If there was a Creator, he built the clock and set it in motion but has not intervened since.

You're still not grasping the reality of things.

You do not see all the evidence pointing to a purely natural past. No one does! By solid evidence, you apparently mean empirical (or scientific) evidence. All of the evidence—logical, mathematical and empirical—point to an absolute beginning of the physical world at large, which includes vacuum energy. Vacuum energy, which necessarily preceded any cosmological structure and the astronomical constituents thereof, is subject to the very same dynamics of entropy! The BB and the prevailing cosmological structure, whether it be a universe or a multiverse, is utterly irrelevant to that reality. In other words, the unsettled science only pertains to the chronological order of cosmological structure. Nothing else!

Everybody who understands the science and the ramifications thereof, knows that the physical world at large, which, once again, includes vacuum energy, began to exist in the finite past. The likes of Carroll, despite his attempt to rhetorically obscure this reality relative to the unsettled science, knows this as well. Guth, whom Carroll implicitly misrepresented knows this. Guth was merely alluding to the commonsensical observation that while in all likelihood our universe is the one and only to have ever existed, that contention cannot be scientifically ascertained and that he personally believes that others have existed in the past (in terms of a series of universes) or do exist now (in terms of multiverse). Carroll was just trying to imply that Craig did not understand that in the debate you cited. Despicable! Craig understands the possibility of that just fine. Craig, though he believes it's improbable, does not deny that possibility at all. No one who understand the science does.

Now, what do you think the prevailing scientific opinion holds regarding that which immediately preceded the physical world at large? Hint: it's immaterial in substance, and scientifically informed atheists, agnostics and theists all agree that it necessarily preceded vacuum energy.

Evidence usually means, you know, real evidence, testable evidence, material evidence as opposed to the “... because I say so”, claims of religioners.

 

[Ringtone]

1. That which begins to exist must have a cause of its existence.

2. The physical world, which includes vacuum energy, began to exist in the finite past.

And just like that, atheists claim not to believe that the incontrovertible principle of sufficient causation, and the logical, mathematical and empirical ramifications thereof are true.

 

[Hollie]

1. That which begins to exist must have a cause of its existence.

2. The physical world, which includes vacuum energy, began to exist in the finite past.

And just like that, atheists claim not to believe that the incontrovertible principle of sufficient causation, and the logical, mathematical and empirical ramifications thereof are true.

Beyond the ramifications of the first principles of the ID’iot creationer “... because I say so” argument, which absolutely tells us nothing, it seems the ID’iot creationers are little more than melodramatic drama queens.

 

[BreezeWood]

1. That which begins to exist must have a cause of its existence.

2. The physical world, which includes vacuum energy, began to exist in the finite past.

And just like that, atheists claim not to believe that the incontrovertible principle of sufficient causation, and the logical, mathematical and empirical ramifications thereof are true.

.

Everybody who understands the science and the ramifications thereof, knows that the physical world at large, which, once again, includes vacuum energy, began to exist in the finite past.

.
yes, the moment of singularity is the cyclical transformation from energy to matter in the present tense and the event will reproduce itself into energy again at a finite time in the future.
.
.

- the incontrovertible principle of sufficient causation ...

.
if so, and not an oxymoron, explains, incontrovertibly the basic principle of the cyclical bb.

 

[LittleNipper]

What's he's saying is that it's unbelievable that everything came about by accident or due to science, therefore a 'god' of some description must have been responsible. In his case it is probably the Christian god, as opposed to the plethora of other gods. However, when you point out the fact that if you take that to its logical conclusion - ie, well, where did the god come from? - that's where the hypocrisy comes in. "Oh, he always was". To which I say, "oh, right. So when it suits you, something can come from nothing, but when it fucks up your narrative, then there had to be some supernatural being involved." No wonder religion is slowly going the way of the Dodo.

What Dr Grump is apparently saying is that something has not necessarily always existed; hence, the cosmos just popped into existence from an ontological nothingness or that science(?!) caused everything to exist.

crickets chirping

By the way, what, precisely, is this science thingy that caused everything else to exist before, mind you, this science thingy existed?

You want to rewrite that mindless gibberish, sport, or are you just going to let it hang out there for God and everybody else to see just how foolish you are?

Beside the ignorant comments you made, I have never read where anyone suggested that ''science'' caused anything to exist. Science is a process of discovery. Science has no powers to magically / supernaturally cause something to exist as you claim your gods have.

While you're thumping your Bible, I would advise that a book is simply that, a book. Until there is a way to connect a supernatural being with the authorship of a book, it's safe to assume that the book is, in fact, merely written by men. Similarly, your claims to a version of polytheistic gods are mere unsubstantiated claims until you can offer something connecting your gods to anything in the natural, rational world.

The Bible is the most influential book to ever exist. If GOD didn't author it, I don't know who could have. JOB Chapter 38
The LORD Challenges Job

1 Then the LORD answered Job out of the tornado and said:

2 “Who is this who obscures My counsel by words without knowledge?

3 Now brace yourself like a man; I will question you, and you shall inform Me.

4 Where were you when I laid the foundations of the earth? Tell Me, if you have understanding.

5 Who fixed its measurements? Surely you know! Or who stretched a measuring line across it?

6 On what were its foundations set, or who laid its cornerstone,

7 while the morning stars sang together and all the sons of God shouted for joy?

8 Who enclosed the sea behind doors when it burst forth from the womb,

9 when I made the clouds its garment and thick darkness its blanket,

10 when I fixed its boundaries and set in place its bars and doors,

11 and I declared: ‘You may come this far, but no farther; here your proud waves must stop’?

12 In your days, have you commanded the morning or assigned the dawn its place,

13 that it might spread to the ends of the earth and shake the wicked out of it?

14 The earth takes shape like clay under a seal; its hills stand out like the folds of a garment.

15 Light is withheld from the wicked, and their upraised arm is broken.

16 Have you journeyed to the vents of the sea or walked in the trenches of the deep?

17 Have the gates of death been revealed to you? Have you seen the gates of the shadow of death?

18 Have you surveyed the extent of the earth? Tell Me, if you know all this.

19 Where is the way to the home of light? Do you know where darkness resides,

20 so you can lead it back to its border? Do you know the paths to its home?

21 Surely you know, for you were already born! And the number of your days is great!

22 Have you entered the storehouses of snow or observed the storehouses of hail,

23 which I hold in reserve for times of trouble, for the day of war and battle?

24 In which direction is the lightning dispersed, or the east wind scattered over the earth?

25 Who cuts a channel for the flood or clears a path for the thunderbolt,

26 to bring rain on a barren land, on a desert where no man lives,

27 to satisfy the parched wasteland and make it sprout with tender grass?

28 Does the rain have a father? Who has begotten the drops of dew?

29 From whose womb does the ice emerge? Who gives birth to the frost from heaven,

30 when the waters become hard as stone and the surface of the deep is frozen?

31 Can you bind the chains of the Pleiades or loosen the belt of Orion?

32 Can you bring forth the constellations in their seasons or lead out the Bear and her cubs?

33 Do you know the laws of the heavens? Can you set their dominion over the earth?

34 Can you command the clouds so that a flood of water covers you?

35 Can you send the lightning bolts on their way? Do they report to you, ‘Here we are’?

36 Who has put wisdom in the heart or given understanding to the mind?

37 Who has the wisdom to count the clouds? Or who can tilt the water jars of the heavens

38 when the dust hardens into a mass and the clods of earth stick together?

39 Can you hunt the prey for a lioness or satisfy the hunger of young lions

40 when they crouch in their dens and lie in wait in the thicket?

41 Who provides food for the raven when its young cry out to God as they wander about for lack of food?

 

[LittleNipper]

See "Genetically Modified Simpleton (GMS) Bumps His Head and Makes Baby Talk about the Fine-Tuned Argument" for my survey of the various, potential cosmologies.

You made my head hurt. I have to admit most of it went over my head but they all seemed like well reasoned, logical points. Unfortunately I don't recall any evidence to support the logic. Yes we're here but...

I still don't know how any of this logic solves the equation creator = God = Yahweh?

Sorry about that. I meant to tell you that you could skip past the first five sections to get at the survey of the potential cosmologies. The takeaway is that just as logic and mathematics tell us that a past eternal cosmos is impossible, so does science. Hence, the physical world (the material realm of being) began to exist in the finite past and, thus, has a cause of its existence.

So what is the nature of this cause? It cannot be of a material substance! It would have to be of a timeless, spaceless, immaterial, immutable and indivisible substance. Absorb that.

I may have neglected to mention that when it comes to the creation of the universe, I'm agnostic. Since I don't know, or at least don't understand, what happened before the BB I can't say there is not a Creator. I really have no evidence either way. Logic is great, solid evidence is much better.

However, when it comes to the God of the OT/NT, I'm an atheist. I see all the evidence pointing to a purely natural past. No supernatural intercessions required. If there was a Creator, he built the clock and set it in motion but has not intervened since.

You're still not grasping the reality of things.

You do not see all the evidence pointing to a purely natural past. No one does! By solid evidence, you apparently mean empirical (or scientific) evidence. All of the evidence—logical, mathematical and empirical—point to an absolute beginning of the physical world at large, which includes vacuum energy. Vacuum energy, which necessarily preceded any cosmological structure and the astronomical constituents thereof, is subject to the very same dynamics of entropy! The BB and the prevailing cosmological structure, whether it be a universe or a multiverse, is utterly irrelevant to that reality. In other words, the unsettled science only pertains to the chronological order of cosmological structure. Nothing else!

Everybody who understands the science and the ramifications thereof, knows that the physical world at large, which, once again, includes vacuum energy, began to exist in the finite past. The likes of Carroll, despite his attempt to rhetorically obscure this reality relative to the unsettled science, knows this as well. Guth, whom Carroll implicitly misrepresented knows this. Guth was merely alluding to the commonsensical observation that while in all likelihood our universe is the one and only to have ever existed, that contention cannot be scientifically ascertained and that he personally believes that others have existed in the past (in terms of a series of universes) or do exist now (in terms of multiverse). Carroll was just trying to imply that Craig did not understand that in the debate you cited. Despicable! Craig understands the possibility of that just fine. Craig, though he believes it's improbable, does not deny that possibility at all. No one who understand the science does.

Now, what do you think the prevailing scientific opinion holds regarding that which immediately preceded the physical world at large? Hint: it's immaterial in substance, and scientifically informed atheists, agnostics and theists all agree that it necessarily preceded vacuum energy.

Evidence usually means, you know, real evidence, testable evidence, material evidence as opposed to the “... because I say so”, claims of religioners.

"Because I say so", claims the Evolutionists and the Uniformitarianists, and the Abiorgenisists. "Where's the band?" asks Mayor Shinn

 

[Hollie]

What's he's saying is that it's unbelievable that everything came about by accident or due to science, therefore a 'god' of some description must have been responsible. In his case it is probably the Christian god, as opposed to the plethora of other gods. However, when you point out the fact that if you take that to its logical conclusion - ie, well, where did the god come from? - that's where the hypocrisy comes in. "Oh, he always was". To which I say, "oh, right. So when it suits you, something can come from nothing, but when it fucks up your narrative, then there had to be some supernatural being involved." No wonder religion is slowly going the way of the Dodo.

What Dr Grump is apparently saying is that something has not necessarily always existed; hence, the cosmos just popped into existence from an ontological nothingness or that science(?!) caused everything to exist.

crickets chirping

By the way, what, precisely, is this science thingy that caused everything else to exist before, mind you, this science thingy existed?

You want to rewrite that mindless gibberish, sport, or are you just going to let it hang out there for God and everybody else to see just how foolish you are?

Beside the ignorant comments you made, I have never read where anyone suggested that ''science'' caused anything to exist. Science is a process of discovery. Science has no powers to magically / supernaturally cause something to exist as you claim your gods have.

While you're thumping your Bible, I would advise that a book is simply that, a book. Until there is a way to connect a supernatural being with the authorship of a book, it's safe to assume that the book is, in fact, merely written by men. Similarly, your claims to a version of polytheistic gods are mere unsubstantiated claims until you can offer something connecting your gods to anything in the natural, rational world.

The Bible is the most influential book to ever exist. If GOD didn't author it, I don't know who could have. JOB Chapter 38
The LORD Challenges Job

1 Then the LORD answered Job out of the tornado and said:

2 “Who is this who obscures My counsel by words without knowledge?

3 Now brace yourself like a man; I will question you, and you shall inform Me.

4 Where were you when I laid the foundations of the earth? Tell Me, if you have understanding.

5 Who fixed its measurements? Surely you know! Or who stretched a measuring line across it?

6 On what were its foundations set, or who laid its cornerstone,

7 while the morning stars sang together and all the sons of God shouted for joy?

8 Who enclosed the sea behind doors when it burst forth from the womb,

9 when I made the clouds its garment and thick darkness its blanket,

10 when I fixed its boundaries and set in place its bars and doors,

11 and I declared: ‘You may come this far, but no farther; here your proud waves must stop’?

12 In your days, have you commanded the morning or assigned the dawn its place,

13 that it might spread to the ends of the earth and shake the wicked out of it?

14 The earth takes shape like clay under a seal; its hills stand out like the folds of a garment.

15 Light is withheld from the wicked, and their upraised arm is broken.

16 Have you journeyed to the vents of the sea or walked in the trenches of the deep?

17 Have the gates of death been revealed to you? Have you seen the gates of the shadow of death?

18 Have you surveyed the extent of the earth? Tell Me, if you know all this.

19 Where is the way to the home of light? Do you know where darkness resides,

20 so you can lead it back to its border? Do you know the paths to its home?

21 Surely you know, for you were already born! And the number of your days is great!

22 Have you entered the storehouses of snow or observed the storehouses of hail,

23 which I hold in reserve for times of trouble, for the day of war and battle?

24 In which direction is the lightning dispersed, or the east wind scattered over the earth?

25 Who cuts a channel for the flood or clears a path for the thunderbolt,

26 to bring rain on a barren land, on a desert where no man lives,

27 to satisfy the parched wasteland and make it sprout with tender grass?

28 Does the rain have a father? Who has begotten the drops of dew?

29 From whose womb does the ice emerge? Who gives birth to the frost from heaven,

30 when the waters become hard as stone and the surface of the deep is frozen?

31 Can you bind the chains of the Pleiades or loosen the belt of Orion?

32 Can you bring forth the constellations in their seasons or lead out the Bear and her cubs?

33 Do you know the laws of the heavens? Can you set their dominion over the earth?

34 Can you command the clouds so that a flood of water covers you?

35 Can you send the lightning bolts on their way? Do they report to you, ‘Here we are’?

36 Who has put wisdom in the heart or given understanding to the mind?

37 Who has the wisdom to count the clouds? Or who can tilt the water jars of the heavens

38 when the dust hardens into a mass and the clods of earth stick together?

39 Can you hunt the prey for a lioness or satisfy the hunger of young lions

40 when they crouch in their dens and lie in wait in the thicket?

41 Who provides food for the raven when its young cry out to God as they wander about for lack of food?

What makes you think any of the gods authored the Bible? I agree that there are authors unknown who wrote portions but there’s no indication that the gods wrote anything.

 

[LittleNipper]

See "Genetically Modified Simpleton (GMS) Bumps His Head and Makes Baby Talk about the Fine-Tuned Argument" for my survey of the various, potential cosmologies.

You made my head hurt. I have to admit most of it went over my head but they all seemed like well reasoned, logical points. Unfortunately I don't recall any evidence to support the logic. Yes we're here but...

I still don't know how any of this logic solves the equation creator = God = Yahweh?

Sorry about that. I meant to tell you that you could skip past the first five sections to get at the survey of the potential cosmologies. The takeaway is that just as logic and mathematics tell us that a past eternal cosmos is impossible, so does science. Hence, the physical world (the material realm of being) began to exist in the finite past and, thus, has a cause of its existence.

So what is the nature of this cause? It cannot be of a material substance! It would have to be of a timeless, spaceless, immaterial, immutable and indivisible substance. Absorb that.

Yours is the standard, stereotypical “gods of the gaps” pleading. They’re all the same. They’re all so grindingly predictable. Because there is a gap in our understanding of how the universe began, “the gawds did it”. The debunking of ID’iot creationist pseudoscience doesn't require anything beyond holding ID’iot creationers to a standard of demonstration and peer review. There is no mystery why the ID’iot creation ministries don’t publish in and peer reviewed scientific journals; that’s because those journals have better things to do than resolve arguments such as how many angels can dance on the head of a pin.

There is nothing to suggest that any collection of supernatural gods had anything to do with the material realm. Matters of science do not address magic and supernaturalism.hand. The religious motivations underlying appeal to supernatural designer gods is self evident. So the question becomes: Can ID’iot creation appeals to supernaturalism be reformulated in a manner which would make it non-religious and scientifically relevant? The answer is no.

What makes a belief in GOD religious? Religion is man's vain attempts to appease GOD. Christianity is strictly a relationship between GOD and man. If someone has a personal relationship with someone else, there are connections that transcends disbelief that that individual doesn't exist. GOD is a spirit and therefore isn't material. Can you show me the wind, or only point to what the wind does?

 

[Hollie]

See "Genetically Modified Simpleton (GMS) Bumps His Head and Makes Baby Talk about the Fine-Tuned Argument" for my survey of the various, potential cosmologies.

You made my head hurt. I have to admit most of it went over my head but they all seemed like well reasoned, logical points. Unfortunately I don't recall any evidence to support the logic. Yes we're here but...

I still don't know how any of this logic solves the equation creator = God = Yahweh?

Sorry about that. I meant to tell you that you could skip past the first five sections to get at the survey of the potential cosmologies. The takeaway is that just as logic and mathematics tell us that a past eternal cosmos is impossible, so does science. Hence, the physical world (the material realm of being) began to exist in the finite past and, thus, has a cause of its existence.

So what is the nature of this cause? It cannot be of a material substance! It would have to be of a timeless, spaceless, immaterial, immutable and indivisible substance. Absorb that.

I may have neglected to mention that when it comes to the creation of the universe, I'm agnostic. Since I don't know, or at least don't understand, what happened before the BB I can't say there is not a Creator. I really have no evidence either way. Logic is great, solid evidence is much better.

However, when it comes to the God of the OT/NT, I'm an atheist. I see all the evidence pointing to a purely natural past. No supernatural intercessions required. If there was a Creator, he built the clock and set it in motion but has not intervened since.

You're still not grasping the reality of things.

You do not see all the evidence pointing to a purely natural past. No one does! By solid evidence, you apparently mean empirical (or scientific) evidence. All of the evidence—logical, mathematical and empirical—point to an absolute beginning of the physical world at large, which includes vacuum energy. Vacuum energy, which necessarily preceded any cosmological structure and the astronomical constituents thereof, is subject to the very same dynamics of entropy! The BB and the prevailing cosmological structure, whether it be a universe or a multiverse, is utterly irrelevant to that reality. In other words, the unsettled science only pertains to the chronological order of cosmological structure. Nothing else!

Everybody who understands the science and the ramifications thereof, knows that the physical world at large, which, once again, includes vacuum energy, began to exist in the finite past. The likes of Carroll, despite his attempt to rhetorically obscure this reality relative to the unsettled science, knows this as well. Guth, whom Carroll implicitly misrepresented knows this. Guth was merely alluding to the commonsensical observation that while in all likelihood our universe is the one and only to have ever existed, that contention cannot be scientifically ascertained and that he personally believes that others have existed in the past (in terms of a series of universes) or do exist now (in terms of multiverse). Carroll was just trying to imply that Craig did not understand that in the debate you cited. Despicable! Craig understands the possibility of that just fine. Craig, though he believes it's improbable, does not deny that possibility at all. No one who understand the science does.

Now, what do you think the prevailing scientific opinion holds regarding that which immediately preceded the physical world at large? Hint: it's immaterial in substance, and scientifically informed atheists, agnostics and theists all agree that it necessarily preceded vacuum energy.

Evidence usually means, you know, real evidence, testable evidence, material evidence as opposed to the “... because I say so”, claims of religioners.

"Because I say so", claims the Evolutionists and the Uniformitarianists, and the Abiorgenisists. "Where's the band?" asks Mayor Shinn

To suggest that the biological sciences are some grand conspiracy is a bit over the top. Biological evolution is perhaps the best supported and demonstrated theory in science.

 

[LittleNipper]

What's he's saying is that it's unbelievable that everything came about by accident or due to science, therefore a 'god' of some description must have been responsible. In his case it is probably the Christian god, as opposed to the plethora of other gods. However, when you point out the fact that if you take that to its logical conclusion - ie, well, where did the god come from? - that's where the hypocrisy comes in. "Oh, he always was". To which I say, "oh, right. So when it suits you, something can come from nothing, but when it fucks up your narrative, then there had to be some supernatural being involved." No wonder religion is slowly going the way of the Dodo.

What Dr Grump is apparently saying is that something has not necessarily always existed; hence, the cosmos just popped into existence from an ontological nothingness or that science(?!) caused everything to exist.

crickets chirping

By the way, what, precisely, is this science thingy that caused everything else to exist before, mind you, this science thingy existed?

You want to rewrite that mindless gibberish, sport, or are you just going to let it hang out there for God and everybody else to see just how foolish you are?

Beside the ignorant comments you made, I have never read where anyone suggested that ''science'' caused anything to exist. Science is a process of discovery. Science has no powers to magically / supernaturally cause something to exist as you claim your gods have.

While you're thumping your Bible, I would advise that a book is simply that, a book. Until there is a way to connect a supernatural being with the authorship of a book, it's safe to assume that the book is, in fact, merely written by men. Similarly, your claims to a version of polytheistic gods are mere unsubstantiated claims until you can offer something connecting your gods to anything in the natural, rational world.

The Bible is the most influential book to ever exist. If GOD didn't author it, I don't know who could have. JOB Chapter 38
The LORD Challenges Job

1 Then the LORD answered Job out of the tornado and said:

2 “Who is this who obscures My counsel by words without knowledge?

3 Now brace yourself like a man; I will question you, and you shall inform Me.

4 Where were you when I laid the foundations of the earth? Tell Me, if you have understanding.

5 Who fixed its measurements? Surely you know! Or who stretched a measuring line across it?

6 On what were its foundations set, or who laid its cornerstone,

7 while the morning stars sang together and all the sons of God shouted for joy?

8 Who enclosed the sea behind doors when it burst forth from the womb,

9 when I made the clouds its garment and thick darkness its blanket,

10 when I fixed its boundaries and set in place its bars and doors,

11 and I declared: ‘You may come this far, but no farther; here your proud waves must stop’?

12 In your days, have you commanded the morning or assigned the dawn its place,

13 that it might spread to the ends of the earth and shake the wicked out of it?

14 The earth takes shape like clay under a seal; its hills stand out like the folds of a garment.

15 Light is withheld from the wicked, and their upraised arm is broken.

16 Have you journeyed to the vents of the sea or walked in the trenches of the deep?

17 Have the gates of death been revealed to you? Have you seen the gates of the shadow of death?

18 Have you surveyed the extent of the earth? Tell Me, if you know all this.

19 Where is the way to the home of light? Do you know where darkness resides,

20 so you can lead it back to its border? Do you know the paths to its home?

21 Surely you know, for you were already born! And the number of your days is great!

22 Have you entered the storehouses of snow or observed the storehouses of hail,

23 which I hold in reserve for times of trouble, for the day of war and battle?

24 In which direction is the lightning dispersed, or the east wind scattered over the earth?

25 Who cuts a channel for the flood or clears a path for the thunderbolt,

26 to bring rain on a barren land, on a desert where no man lives,

27 to satisfy the parched wasteland and make it sprout with tender grass?

28 Does the rain have a father? Who has begotten the drops of dew?

29 From whose womb does the ice emerge? Who gives birth to the frost from heaven,

30 when the waters become hard as stone and the surface of the deep is frozen?

31 Can you bind the chains of the Pleiades or loosen the belt of Orion?

32 Can you bring forth the constellations in their seasons or lead out the Bear and her cubs?

33 Do you know the laws of the heavens? Can you set their dominion over the earth?

34 Can you command the clouds so that a flood of water covers you?

35 Can you send the lightning bolts on their way? Do they report to you, ‘Here we are’?

36 Who has put wisdom in the heart or given understanding to the mind?

37 Who has the wisdom to count the clouds? Or who can tilt the water jars of the heavens

38 when the dust hardens into a mass and the clods of earth stick together?

39 Can you hunt the prey for a lioness or satisfy the hunger of young lions

40 when they crouch in their dens and lie in wait in the thicket?

41 Who provides food for the raven when its young cry out to God as they wander about for lack of food?

What makes you think any of the gods authored the Bible? I agree that there are authors unknown who wrote portions but there’s no indication that the gods wrote anything.

The gods didn't author the Bible. GOD authored the Bible. I honestly cannot find any fault with the Bible. It is a perfect book. Only God could write a perfect book.